Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKERin the Chair]

NEW WRIT

Ordered,
That Madam Speaker do issue her Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Romsey in the room of Michael Keith Beale Colvin, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL (LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 13 April.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 April.

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 19 April at 7 o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Working Families Tax Credit

Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to the working families tax credit announced in the Budget.[116600]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Three million people have now inquired on our special telephone line about working families tax credit. There are already 1 million families with children receiving the new working families tax credit, including almost 100,000 receiving the child care tax credit. Following the changes that I announced in the Budget, the minimum income guarantee for a family with someone in full-time work will be £207 a week from June this year—£80 more than the family would receive on income

support—and it will be £214 a week from April 2001. Taking all our measures together, the changes introduced since 1997 will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty.

Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know that the extra help will be warmly welcomed by more than 2,000 lower-paid families in my constituency, Conwy. Does he share my sadness that the Conservative party has learned so little that it would scrap the working families tax credit and thereby bring back the despair, distress and heartache felt by so many hard-working families before the general election of May 1997, after 18 years of a Tory Government?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Not only are 60,000 people in Wales benefiting from the working families tax credit, but in almost every constituency in the country there are at least 1,000 families who are now receiving, on average, £24 more per week. Abolition of the measure would mean a tax rise of £24 a week for working families. I do not think that any party should contemplate that.
The response to the working families tax credit is quite different from what the Opposition predicted. Three million people have inquired about it and 1 million people are on it. I believe that more people will want to join it. We are achieving two things: we are making work pay, and we are taking children out of poverty.

Mr. Michael Portillo: I know that the Chancellor likes to swagger and boast about the working families tax credit, but if it really is the greatest thing since sliced bread, as he claims, why is he proposing to abolish it? Having made such play of the fact that it should be paid through the wage packet, why is he proposing that the replacement benefit should be paid to the carer? Is it not the case that, for such a clever fellow, the Chancellor has got himself into a complete muddle and has made the benefit an unholy mess?

Mr. Brown: We are doing what should have been done years ago. We are making work pay for working families. I take it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Opposition Members will listen. I take it from the shadow Chancellor's remarks that the next Conservative Government, if there were one, would abolish the working families tax credit. What the shadow Chancellor must now explain—[Interruption.]Opposition Members are very restive this morning. They are clearly on edge about a measure that is popular within the country.
We will expand the working families tax credit by creating an integrated children's credit and an employment credit. We will achieve two things: first, we will make work pay and, secondly, we will tackle child poverty.
I should have thought that the shadow Chancellor would think twice before wanting to abolish the benefit. In the Sunday Times of 20 September 1998, he stated:
Conservatism has become inextricably connected with uncaring social attitudes, selfish behaviour and sleaze. Of course it should be apologetic for mismanaging the economy.
Those are his words.

Mr. Portillo: Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer the question? If the benefit is so good, why is he abolishing it? If it is so important that it is paid


through the wage packet, why is he going to change it so that it is paid to carers? It is all very well him preening himself on the working families tax credit; does he not do that because he wants to obscure the real damage that he has done to hard-working families?
Is not the Chancellor less than honest when he speaks of the reducing tax burdens on families, when he knows that that applies only to a family who does not drink, does not smoke, does not drive, does not save, does not have a mortgage, is not married, does not have a pension and does not go on holiday? He knows that real families are not like that. He knows that the real position is that the average family now has to pay £670 more a year. Why will not the Chancellor be honest with us? Why does Mr. Toad have to be so slippery?

Mr. Brown: We will expand the working families tax credit; the Opposition are trying to abolish it. People will know at the next general election that the Opposition want to abolish not only the new deal and put thousands of people out of work, but the working families tax credit. That would lead to a tax rise of £24 a week. We know from last week's votes in the House that they did not support the first spending measure on the health service or the cigarette tax, which will provide £400 million. They would make working families worse off by cutting into health service expenditure. We are on the side of working families; the Opposition are the enemy of those families.

Pensioner Incomes

Ms Rosie Winterton: What estimate he has made of the impact which changes in savings limits will have on pensioner incomes. [116601]

Ms Linda Perham: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase the incomes of the poorest pensioners. [116614]

Ms Sandra Osborne: How many pensioners will benefit from the increases in the minimum income guarantee in Scotland. [116615]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): An estimated 500,000 pensioners will gain an average of £5.05 a week as a direct result of the changes to the savings limit that I announced in the Budget. The minimum income guarantee will increase next week to at least £78.45 for the youngest single pensioners and £131.05 for pensioner couples aged 80 and above.
The minimum income guarantee benefits approximately 1.5 million pensioners, of whom 165,000 live in Scotland. In each area of the country, our take-up campaign is designed to ensure that more pensioners can benefit from the measures that are due to them.

Ms Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his changes have been widely welcomed in Yorkshire and Humberside? Thousands of pensioners will benefit from them. That is in stark contrast with the treatment of pensioners when the Tory party was in power. Will he assure me that the longer-term review that he announced

will have at its heart a commitment to ensuring that pensioners who have saved a little and perhaps have a small income will be rewarded, not penalised?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for that question, because we will publish a discussion document on a new pensioner credit to help exactly that group of pensioners, whose savings and modest occupational pensions should not penalise them by preventing them from receiving benefits that are due to them. Again, I believed that all parties would support that.
The measures that we introduced in the Budget and in previous Budgets, such as the winter fuel allowance, which will increase to £150, free colour television licences for 3 million pensioners, which will be introduced in November for those over 75, and the minium income guarantee, which relieves poverty, mean that 1 million pensioners are approximately £1,000 better off than they would have been under a Conservative Government. We are keeping our promises to pensioners, and we shall do more.
People understand from the events of the past week, especially from the statements of the Opposition social security spokesman, that the Conservative party will not even guarantee to keep the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. So much for talk of a caring attitude. The shadow Chancellor was right; the Conservatives are guilty of selfish attitudes yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Ms Perham: I welcome the increases in the minimum income guarantee, but does the Chancellor accept that some people will not claim it? He has announced many measures that have already been introduced for pensioners, but many pensioners in my constituency complain about the small increase in the basic pension. Does my right hon. Friend have anything more to say to them?

Mr. Brown: Yes, we have followed the rules of inflation that the previous Government pursued in calculating the basic pension. From April 2001, we expect the basic pension to increase by £2 or more for single people and by £3 or more for couples, based on our forecast for inflation in September.
At the same time, we unfroze the income limits for the pensioners about whom my hon. Friend is especially worried. Those limits deprived 500,000 pensioners of the benefits of the minimum income guarantee. We raised the income limit from £3,000 to £6,000 and raised the total ceiling from £8,000 to £12,000. Those ceilings had been in play since 1988 and 1990. Nothing had been done under the previous Government. We have taken action to help those pensioners whose savings should not debar them from getting the benefits they are due.

Ms Osborne: I also welcome the fact that 165,000 Scottish pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee, but I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the concerns among pensioners in my constituency of Ayr. In the Budget, I was pleased to hear about the review and the fact that the needs of pensioners with modest incomes who are above minimum income


guarantee levels will also be examined. What opportunities will there be for pensioners in my constituency to have an input to the discussion document?

Mr. Brown: I hope that the pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and in all constituencies in this country will take up the benefits that they are due as a result of the take-up campaign launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. We have raised the personal allowances for pensioners higher than the rates of inflation for those who pay tax, and 60 per cent. of pensioners no longer pay, or do not pay, tax. At the same time, we are determined to take more pensioners out of poverty and I believe that the combination of the minimum income guarantee, the winter allowance and the discussion that we are having about the pensioners credit is the right way forward. It is a scandal that more than 1 million pensioners were in poverty when we came to power. We are taking action.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Chancellor regret having misled millions of pensioners on Budget day when he—

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase that sentence? I do not think that Chancellors mislead. We do not use that word.

Mr. Chope: Perhaps the Chancellor unintentionally misled. I shall refer to the text if necessary, but on Budget day he said that the changes in the savings limits for pensioners would take effect from next April. On Budget day, next April was April 2000. We now find that those changes will not take place until April 2001. As a result of the misuse of the English language, many millions of pensioners were misled.

Mr. Brown: First, 500,000 pensioners benefit from that measure. Secondly, they were not misled at all. All the documentation made the position absolutely clear, as did my speech. Thirdly, if the Conservatives are to resort to those tactics, they have very little to say to pensioners. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate us because 11,000 pensioners in his constituency will get free colour television licences as a result of what we have done, which the Conservatives would never have done.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As pensioners collect their measly 75p increase this week, might they not wonder exactly what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister meant when they wrote in the Labour manifesto that pensioners as a whole would share in the growing wealth of the economy? According to the Government's own figures in a parliamentary question this week, pensioners will get a lower share of the national economy this year than in the last year under the Conservatives.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that anybody will take lectures from the Liberal party. It never supported the winter fuel allowance; we introduced it. It never supported the minimum income guarantee; we introduced it. It never supported raising the savings limits; we have done that. The Liberals quote a House of Commons answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, but it does not include free eye tests,

the cut in VAT on fuel, what we have done on transport and what we have done to deal with the regulation of the utilities and to keep fuel bills down. The truth is that, by the end of this Parliament, pensioners will be getting £800 million more a year than they would have got even if we had raised the pension in line with earnings. The Liberal party said that the pension should be raised in line with inflation. It is being absolutely hypocritical.

Madam Speaker: Order. We use "hypocritical" no more than we use "misled" in the House.[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the Chancellor will oblige the House by withdrawing "hypocritical".

Mr. Brown: I withdraw what I said. The Liberals have been unintentionally hypocritical.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, when referring to all the measures that he has taken to help pensioners, he should also refer to the £5 billion raid on pension funds? Is it not the attack on pension funds that has done so much damage to the livelihood of pensioners? The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on what we have done for the economy. The valuation of the assets held by pension funds has risen by about 60 or 70 per cent. since we came to power. That is no thanks to the Conservatives, who would have brought us back to boom and bust.

All-employee Share Plan

Mr. Jeff Ennis: What steps he is taking to promote the new all-employee share plan. [116602]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): A number of steps have been taken. A thousand company representatives have attended presentations around the country on the new all-employee scheme, and further training events are being planned for employers. The Trades Union Congress is working with us to inform employees, and Members of Parliament are being sent material to help them to explain the advantages of the plan in the course of their constituency work.

Mr. Ennis: The scheme is fully supported by all trade unions. They have campaigned for it for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will greatly reduce the old "us and them" attitude that used to prevail among company bosses and their employees?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Encouraging employee share ownership enables us both to boost productivity and to promote fairness. We know from research that employee share ownership boosts productivity, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it also helps to ensure that the benefits of company success are spread fairly. The TUC has made an important contribution to the consultation, and I shall meet TUC policy officers this afternoon to discuss it.
The scheme is a clear example of our ability to build a modern economy and a decent economy at the same time.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: When the Financial Secretary and his colleagues designed the brilliant new national insurance contribution for high-tech companies and their share prices, did they mean to tax success? Did they know that they were creating an unquantifiable contingent liability, which would appear on those companies' balance sheets? Are they aware that Oracle and other high-tech companies are now joining Cisco in the emigration queues, and what are they going to do about it?

Mr. Timms: As the hon. Gentleman knows, consultation is under way on employers' national insurance on share options. I am engaged in discussion with the firms affected about how best to solve the problem, and we expect to be able to present proposals sooner rather than later.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Cisco. I am pleased to say that Cisco was an enthusiastic participant in a seminar that we had last week on how our welfare-to-work policies and programmes could be used to benefit the information technology industry. For that industry and, indeed, the whole economy, the economic success that we are currently enjoying is extremely good news.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome given to the employee share ownership measures in the Budget by organisations such as ProShare, Capital Strategies and Job Ownership? Although the last Government talked a lot about employee share ownership, they delivered very little. Is that not the big difference? We have really broken through.
A number of organisations are helping to promote employee share ownership. Could my hon. Friend have a word with the Department of Trade and Industry? Perhaps it could get on to the bandwagon, through the Small Business Service and its other agencies, to promote employee share ownership as an important new economic development building a partnership economy, as opposed to the two-class economy that the Tories have always supported.

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. There has been wide support for the consultation on the new plan, in which many firms, organisations and trade unions are taking part. This is a partnership effort, and the wide welcome given by the Confederation of British Industry and others to the details of the plan announced in the Budget testifies to the success of our approach.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Government's new enthusiasm for the long-standing Liberal policy of worker share ownership.
Does the Financial Secretary agree that the number of such schemes is so utterly derisory—1,750 companies are using them, out of millions—because of the convoluted, time-consuming procedures engaged in by the Inland Revenue in its valuation of unquoted companies? What does he propose to do to alleviate the problem?

Mr. Timms: We aim to double the number of companies that have an all-employee share scheme

through the measures that we are taking. Many companies, particularly smaller ones, have welcomed the arrangements in the new plan. In finalising the details, we have taken account of the position of unlisted companies. They will particularly welcome the changes in the latest details that we have announced.

Business Education

Mr. Jon Trickett: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase opportunities to learn about business in schools in unemployment blackspots, with particular reference to former coal-mining areas. [116603]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): We are providing an extra £10 million in this financial year to enhance education-business link activities in England, including in high unemployment areas. On 11 May, we are launching Enterprise Insight, a campaign to inspire young people to follow careers in enterprise, which will focus initially on young people and high unemployment areas.

Mr. Trickett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the initiatives that she has announced. I hope that, shortly, there will also be a welcome announcement on state aid to the coal industry. Is she aware of the work in schools such as Hemsworth high and Minsthorpe community college, which seek to bring together the education and business sectors in areas of long-term decline? Will she seek to build on that work? After all, the future regeneration of areas such as mine and those represented by many other hon. Members depends on today's younger people.

Miss Johnson: Yes, I certainly support the work in my hon. Friend's constituency and recognise its importance, as, I am sure, he recognises the importance of the work that the Government have done to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in schools, so that young people will be equipped for the world of work. I am sure that he recognises, too, the progress that we have made as a result of initiatives to reduce unemployment throughout the country.
In my hon. Friend's constituency, youth unemployment is down by 68 per cent. since the last election and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. Those figures clearly show that business-education partnerships will be working in fertile territory in building for young people for the future.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Economic Secretary regret that the Government's announcement that they will abolish training and enterprise councils will lead to the removal of business input to training, including in schools?

Miss Johnson: No, I do not regret the change. The TECs were strong in some areas, but discredited in others. A number of difficulties had arisen. Our initiative in that regard, coupled with the work of the new Small Business Service, will do only more to enhance support to small and medium enterprises throughout the country. When we set all that in the context of the fact that we are able to provide a stable economic climate in which business can


flourish—unlike the boom and bust of the Tory years—we realise that those will make a positive contribution in a climate in which business can flourish and is flourishing.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On the question of coal mining communities, the hon. Lady might know that, on Tuesday, there was a substantial lobby of people from the various coal mining communities in the United Kingdom. The Welsh representatives, a cross-party group, were desperately worried about the absence of additional funding, or any commitment from the Chancellor to provide that, to secure objective 1 funding. Had he done something about it, the Prime Minister would not today have to be in the south Wales valleys, trying to shore up the haemorrhaging Labour vote.

Miss Johnson: Objective 1 status is a matter for the spending review. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is forgetting the enormous progress that has been made in his constituency through the new deal in lowering both long-term and youth unemployment, and the initiatives that have already been launched in respect of the coal fields, which include new provision of £60 million over three years to fund the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and Coalfield Enterprise Fund. A further initiative, Network Space Ltd., has been established as a joint venture between English Partnerships and the private sector to provide workspace sites in former coal fields and to create yet more jobs.

Withdrawal of Tax Allowances

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: How many families that qualified for the married couples allowance in 1999–2000 will not qualify for the child tax credit in 2001–02. [116605]

Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many married couples will be liable for higher-rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance. [116607]

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the impact on married couples reaching pensionable age after 6 April of his withdrawal of tax allowances to date. [116613]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of the measures that we have taken in this and previous Budgets, pensioner households will, from next April, be on average £400 a year better off, and families with children will be on average £850 a year better off. The number of couples liable for higher rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance will be zero.

Mrs. Gillan: Why is the Minister congenitally incapable of answering the question on the Order Paper? As that answer bore no relation to my question, I shall tell him that, today, 10 million people lose the married couples tax allowance, and that, of those 10 million people, 5 million will not qualify for the child tax credit. Is the Minister proud to be part of a Government who have removed the last recognition of marriage from the tax system and a Government whose stealth taxes mean

that the typical, decent, hard-working family is paying £670 a year more in tax? Does not the way in which this Government are robbing the family make Maxwell look like an amateur?

Mr. Smith: The Budget's success has clearly upset Conservative Members. My colleagues and I are proud to be members of a Government who are focusing resources on families with children and tackling the obscenity of the extent of United Kingdom child poverty which we inherited from the previous, Conservative Administration. The fact is that 5 million families will benefit from the child credit. Moreover, from next week, people will see the record increase in child benefit—£15 for the first child and £10 for others. From June, they will see the increase in the working families tax credit—£4.35 extra for a child under 16. From next April, they will see the children's tax credit of £8.50 a week. Families are benefiting from those measure because we are a Government who are working hard for hard-working families—whereas the previous, Conservative Government consigned millions of children to poverty.

Mr. Swayne: Madam Speaker, do you think that the Chief Secretary's failure to answer question 7 was intentional or unintentional? The question is quite simple, and the answer has to be a number. I have asked the question twice before, but twice before the Chief Secretary has failed to give me the answer. How many families is it? My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says that it is 10 million. Is it 10 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to say the answer?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman not only did not listen to my answer, but seems not to have read his own question. His question was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
How many married couples will be liable for higher—rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance.
I gave him the answer: it is zero.

Mr. Brady: Are not the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, in their Budget tax increase, which is effective today, also hitting 200,000 pensioner couples who this year will lose the married couples allowance? Will not those couples each be up to £500 a year worse off? Is not the Government's policy hitting hardest those who, in the Chancellor's phrase, are "most prudent" and have made some provision for themselves?

Mr. Smith: It is very important on this question to underline that those pensioners who get the married couples allowance have not lost it as a consequence of our changes. Moreover, those who become pensioners from today will benefit not only from the higher rate of personal allowances, but from the introduction of a £150 winter allowance—which Conservative Members would take away from them—and a lop tax rate on savings which we have introduced and which benefits 1.5 million pensioners. The minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners will give 1 million poor pensioner couples £1,000 a year more than they were receiving under the Conservatives.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The people of Eccles and Salford welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. The situation is a great improvement on what the Tories left. Does he agree that he should take no lessons from the Liberals, who were irresponsible in the city of Salford by suggesting an illegal budget, supported by their leader?

Mr. Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. He is right that we should accept no lectures from Opposition Members. However, we cannot let the issue go without mentioning that when the current shadow Chancellor was taking the axe to the married couples allowance, he said:
We have considered the tax system and chosen the allowances that appear to have the least on-going justification or to be the most anomalous.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 348.]
Those are the words of the Conservatives.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any political party needs credibility on taxation? Does he also agree that to promise to cut taxation year on year, regardless of economic circumstances, while at the same time promising to match our huge spending commitments to schools and hospitals is not only incredible, but the most sure-fire way of returning to the economics of boom and bust? If one believes recent newspaper articles, it is a policy with which even the shadow Chancellor does not agree.

Mr. Smith: Absolutely. The last time that the Conservatives made similar promises, they broke them all. They brought in the 22 tax rises and put VAT on fuel when they promised not to do so. Their sums do not add up. They cannot promise the so-called tax guarantee and at the same time say that they will maintain our levels of health spending. When they had the chance on the Budget, they refused to vote for the first £400 million for the health service from the tobacco tax.

Petrol Duty

Mr. Nicholas Soames: What recent representations he has received on the level of petrol duty. [116606]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Before the Budget, Treasury Ministers received a number of representations about the level of petrol duty. Representations were received from the AA, the RAC and the Petrol Retailers Association. In addition, many private individuals contacted their Members of Parliament, who then wrote to Treasury Ministers on their behalf.

Mr. Soames: The Paymaster General will recognise that all those people will have been gravely disappointed by the outcome of the Budget. Will she confirm that the average motorist is now paying more than £200 extra a year in petrol tax under Labour? Does she not realise that for many people, particularly in rural areas, a car is essential, not a luxury, as it is for her? Does she further agree that with the regrettable closure of banks and other rural services, old people are being put at a grave disadvantage, with inadequate means to support a car?

Dawn Primarolo: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in the House. I remind him that his party introduced the

escalator. In the Budget we made no real increase in the level of petrol duty—the lowest increase for nearly a decade. The Conservatives failed to match that in government. I take his concern for people living in rural areas with a pinch of salt, because when the Conservative Government had the opportunity to act, they failed to do so.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I welcome the decision to have no real increase in petrol duty this year. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that much of the recent price rise in petrol has been a result of profit taking by oil companies, perhaps including the oil exploration company Kerr McGee, to which the shadow Chancellor is a paid consultant?

Dawn Primarolo: The world price of oil has clearly contributed to the rise in prices at petrol pumps. That is outside the control of the Government. The AA welcomed the Budget, for the first time in a decade. It particularly welcomed the £280 million investment in the transport fund and the fact that there was no real increase in the price of petrol.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister explain why the penal rate of tax on vehicle petrol is justified on environmental grounds—presumably to discourage use—when the Government reduced the tax on domestic fuel, which causes even more pollution?

Dawn Primarolo: I am slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be staking out a policy on behalf of the Opposition for raising VAT on domestic fuel and returning to the habits of Conservatives when in government, which the shadow Chancellor continually denounces. The Opposition need to make up their minds. Do they or do they not agree with reaching the Kyoto targets? Do they or do they not agree that we should have environmental obligations? If they do, will they explain why they oppose every measure to meet these obligations and deny all the steps that they took to take us further away from them?

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the removal of the fuel escalator—without doubt, its removal was welcomed throughout the country—but those of us who represent rural areas wish to see a way forward to reduce the cost of travel within our areas. Between now and the next Budget. what policies can be brought forward to make petrol cheaper and to ensure that rural petrol stations continue to survive?

Dawn Primarolo: I remind my hon. Friend that the Government took note of the particular problems for those living in rural areas and the transport difficulties that they experience, first with the transport fund and secondly with the reduction in vehicle excise duty, especially for the owners of smaller vehicles. The Government's policy across vehicle excise duty, petrol prices and investment in transport offers a balanced way forward both for those who live in rural areas and for those who live in our cities.

Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister confirm that by using the little trick of raising petrol duty by an inflation index of 3.4 per cent.


in comparison with the 1.2 per cent. inflation index for personal allowances, the Government have levied a further £500 million of tax on British working families?

Dawn Primarolo: I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman has never been in government, so I suppose he can be forgiven for not knowing how the tax system works. The methodology used for this year's increase is exactly the same as that which has been used in previous years. It is the same methodology that the Conservative Government used.

EU Structural Funds

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): What progress he has made in securing matching public funds for EU objective regions. [6608]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Discussions are under way between Government and the English objective programme partnerships about identifying the match funding which regions need. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry are taking the lead. My right hon. Friends the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions have undertaken to meet again the all-party parliamentary group on objective to discuss progress. I would describe that progress as very encouraging.

Mr. George: In the unseemly scramble to claim credit for securing objective status, will the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to ensure that there are adequate public match funds in place? Given that his colleagues in both MAFF and the DTI do not have sufficient and adequate match funds and that there are three other Government Departments with responsibilities in this area, does he agree that it is imperative that the Treasury steps in, takes the lead and at Cabinet level ensures that this golden opportunity is not mishandled?

Mr. Smith: As I have made clear to the House previously, we are in touch with all the Departments concerned and in close discussions as part of the spending review. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who wrote to the partnerships on 24 March, was able to report good progress on precisely the issues that the hon. Gentleman is raising. There is progress on helping partnerships to identify a full range of match-funding sources, exploring the possibility of adjusting matching rates between programme measures and years; the use of some regional selective assistance as match funding; MAFF funding; on-going discussions with the Commission on increasing the flexibility between the private and public sector contributions to match funding; and the announcements in the Budget of the venture capital fund; which will greatly assist the regions, and also the £50 million for clusters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about objective 1 in the English regions, west Wales and the valleys that every effort is being made in government to ensure that match funding is secured.

Mr. David Watts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and other Treasury Ministers on the work that they have done over the past few months to resolve the immediate problem of match funding for

objective 1 structural funds. However, does not he agree that the long-term problem can be resolved only by changing the Treasury rules, achieving more joined-up government and finding more inventive ways to ensure that we do not have to look for match funding every year?

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for what we have achieved with regard to objective 1 funding. We should not forget that it was the Government's success at Berlin and subsequently that secured objective 1 boosts for Cornwall, south Yorkshire and Merseyside worth £300 million, £700 million and more than £800 million, respectively.
We are continually looking at how we can improve the arrangements for securing match funding but, as I said, I am greatly encouraged by the progress that we are making. I shall keep in close touch with my hon. Friend, and with other hon. Members who are concerned about this matter, to ensure that the regions get the benefit that they need and which they were denied by the Conservative Government.

Corporate Tax

Mr. Bill Tynan: If he will make a statement on corporate tax rates (a) in the UK and (b) in other European Union countries. [116610]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Our main rate of corporation tax is the lowest among the major industrialised countries and our small companies rate is one of the most competitive in the European Union. We have cut both by three percentage points since taking office. I am pleased to say that our new starting rate of 10 per cent., which was introduced this month specifically for small companies, is the lowest rate in the EU. About 270,000 companies will benefit from the starting rate. By means of that and other measures, we have established a stable, low-rate, competitive tax environment, in which business can thrive.

Mr. Tynan: On behalf of the business community in my constituency of Hamilton, South, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his promotion of business-friendly policies. Does he agree with the director of the Institute of Directors who, the morning after the Budget, said that the Government were creating an enterprise culture in this country? Does he also agree that the Conservative Government's policy of increasing taxes, promoting boom-and-bust economics and amassing large debts created bad conditions for business?

Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the measures in the Budget. He is quite right: the Institute of Directors applauded the Budget for what it did to establish an enterprise culture. Those measures include our capital gains tax reforms, the lop tax rate, the shortening of the tapers, the help for unquoted companies and the promotion of employee share ownership, which we discussed earlier.
It was, indeed, a Budget for enterprise. It will foster stability, to replace the boom and bust that did so much damage under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Under this Government, business in this country has learned the hard


way that, behind the headline rate of corporation tax, there is a barrage of stealth taxes. Why is the share of national income taken in business taxes in this country now twice what it is in Germany or France?

Mr. Smith: That is absolute nonsense, given all the charges that business in Germany and France has to pay. Instead of talking down this country and its achievements, Conservative Members should be praising the amount of European Union investment into this country. They should acknowledge that, thanks to the enterprise culture that the Government have fostered, inward investment into this country rose by 32 per cent. last year, and that the stock of inward investment in the United Kingdom has risen by 60 per cent. since the general election. Business has given the Labour Government a vote of confidence, in contrast with the economic failure of the previous Conservative Government.

Confederation of British Industry

Mr. Barry Sheerman: When he will next meet the CBI to discuss its reactions to his recent Budget and the assistance that it gives to the manufacturing sector. [116612]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I regularly meet with the Confederation of British Industry and other bodies. Our Budget measures for manufacturing include making permanent capital allowances, introducing a new research and development tax credit, introducing a regional venture capital investment fund of £1 billion, 100 per cent. capital allowances for new technology, the continuation of the lowest corporate tax rates for small businesses and large companies of any of the G7 countries and, of course, the maintenance of economic stability.

Mr. Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses up and down the country are grateful not only for the Budget for business but for the three Budgets that he has introduced, which have been very good for our economy? Is he also aware that British business is responding by trying to reach higher levels of productivity, and is gradually succeeding? Businesses will also be very pleased at today's announcement that there will be no rise in interest rates, as they are still very concerned about the value of the pound against the euro.

Mr. Brown: The Government's policy is for stability and steady growth. That is achieved by having monetary and fiscal stability. I will continue to support the Bank of England in the decisions that it makes.
Manufacturing output is rising and productivity has risen by 5 per cent. Although I recognise the difficulties caused for manufacturing by the strength of the pound against the euro, the industry is not only responding but winning in many of our world markets.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the steps that have been taken to help industry, but will the Chancellor acknowledge that the textile industry in particular is under tremendous threat? Have there been any specific discussions with the Department of Trade and

Industry and representatives of the textile industry to protect one of our basic industries, which has provided employment for our people for generations?

Mr. Brown: I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the textile industry in Northern Ireland and the whole of mainland Britain. The measures that we have taken in the Budget, such as making permanent the 40 per cent. capital allowances, will be of benefit to textiles and other manufacturing industries. I know that that is what the CBI and other organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors, were pressing for, and it has been achieved under a Labour Government. I also know that for companies in the textile sector which are innovating and bringing forward new products and processes, the research and development tax credit—which will be worth £150 million and available even before profit is made from these inventions—will be of help. For companies which invest more, the regional venture capital investment funds will help Northern Ireland as well as mainland Britain.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while some sections of the textile industry are suffering, Scotland has very successful garment and fashion businesses? Does he also agree that although all the fiscal measures that he has introduced help the manufacturing sector, the manufacturing sector is also helped by the education and training that provides a skilled work force and a healthy community?

Mr. Brown: Our policies for education, which are raising standards in schools, are essential for creating the modern skills base that industry needs. In addition, with the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce, we are launching a national enterprise campaign that will link businesses to schools. A thousand business ambassadors will help young people learn about commerce and business for the future.
On the future of business, my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, whereas 1.2 million businesses were employing people when we came into power, there has been a 10 per cent. growth during our time in office. There are now 800,000 people in jobs who were not in jobs in 1997. We are continuing to pursue a policy of employment opportunity for all. Economic stability is our policy—we will not allow Britain to return to the boom and bust of the Tory years.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Chancellor take the CBI's advice on IR35? Four weeks ago, the Paymaster General criticised the Conservative party for standing up against the IR35 stealth tax on Britain's high-taxed, high-tech entrepreneurs, but has the Chancellor read the report in Tuesday's Evening Standard, headlined: "Tax climbdown on way as IT experts quit UK"? Will he confirm that he is under pressure from the e-commerce tsar, Mr. Allan, and from the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, to change his stance by easing up on IR35? It is not only the Conservative party that says that he is wrong—his own party thinks so too.

Mr. Brown: No, we are not under pressure from either of the people mentioned by the hon. Gentleman,


who clearly has no documentary evidence to prove what he says. It is interesting that the Conservatives say nothing about the basic rate of tax, or the 10p starting rate, or the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe, or the lowest small business tax rates. They are, however, very interested in tax avoidance. I have often thought over the past few days that the only tax credit that interests the Conservatives is a tax credit for Lord Ashcroft of Belize as he comes back to this country.
We published our measures on IR35 last April, and they were followed by a discussion period and a consultation document. We made our decision last summer, and it was the right decision. Everyone should pay a fair rate of tax, and there should be no tax avoidance. It is about time the Opposition supported fair tax.

Gulf War

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What has been the total sum paid from the Contingency Fund for the Gulf War operations. [116616]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): No advances have been made from the contingencies fund this year in respect of Gulf war operations. I can also confirm that there have been no claims during the current financial year on the Departmental expenditure limit reserve in respect of operations in the Gulf. Any on-going Gulf related expenditure is met from within the Ministry of Defence's budget.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Chief Secretary any figures for the annual cost of our Iraq commitment?

Mr. Smith: I do. As a direct result of operations in the Gulf since the conflict began in 1990, the estimates were as follows: for 1999–2000, £30 million; for 1997–98, £16 million; and for 1996–97, £6 million. The total since 1990 is £580 million, and I shall give my hon. Friend the details for the other years.

Amusement Industry

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will make a statement on measures in his Budget to boost seaside arcade businesses and support the amusement machine industry.[116617]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Budget introduced a package of reform for amusement machine licence duty, which will reduce tax revenue in the first year and be neutral in the longer term. It targets extra help on seaside arcades. A new exemption from duty for 10p small prize amusement machines has been particularly welcomed by those concerned about seaside tourism.

Dr. Ladyman: Sober-suited business men seldom dance in the streets, but one or two in my constituency came close to doing so on Budget night because it is home to seaside arcades, suppliers of amusement machines and the world's two leading manufacturers, whose businesses were secured by what the Government did. Will my hon. Friend build on the good will thus created by ensuring that he meets at least annually with trade organisations for the industry so that they may discuss future opportunities for revenue raising and identify weaknesses in the industry so that we may continue to support it?

Mr. Timms: I have, of course, met representatives of the industry, and should be happy to do so again in the run-up to future Budgets if representations are made to me. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that our changes have been particularly welcome at the seaside and to manufacturers of machines. The gain is for machines with non-cash prizes, which are popular at the seaside, rather than for cash-prize machines. As we often do, we listened to representations from the industry and acted on them. I am pleased to hear that people are dancing in the streets as a result.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats are pleased with the concession for small prize machines—a proposal tabled during progress on last year's Finance Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and me. I am glad that the Government have accepted another Liberal Democrat idea, which will help British Legion branches, working men's clubs and even Conservative clubs. Given the number of pensioners who use such clubs and such machines, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor to improve pensioners' incomes rather than persisting with this month's measly 75p increase?

Mr. Timms: The changes we are introducing are good news for machines in social clubs as well. I pay tribute to all my hon. Friends who have made representations on behalf of seaside tourism in particular.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 APRIL—Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Television Licence (Disclosure of Information) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 APRIL—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
Motion on Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.
WEDNESDAY 12 APRII.—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Future of Sub Post Offices" followed by a debate on "Asylum Seekers". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 13 APRIL—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 18 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Postal Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Utilities Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 20 APRIL—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 12 April, there will be a debate on the White Paper on Food Safety in the European Union in European Standing Committee C.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the provisional business for the week after. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for thinning out the business for next week in response to my request last week. I am sure that this is a sensible response to the pressure from her Back Benchers for a less demanding parliamentary programme, although we shall still deal with the Second Reading of two Government Bills. To inform the debate next Tuesday on the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, will she place in the Library the relevant papers that she presented to the Modernisation Committee last year?
There is continued concern in the House about events in Zimbabwe. Might we expect a statement next week following the meeting of the General Affairs Council on Monday? Is there likely to be a statement next week on the reform of licensing hours? If there is, will Ministers respond to Madam Speaker's stern injunction yesterday not to trail the announcement, but to present it first to the House of Commons? Has the Leader of the House

initiated the review of procedures in Whitehall that was asked for by you, Madam Speaker, in column 975 yesterday?
Finally, the House will have noticed that there is no time to debate the housing Green Paper published on Tuesday, the sporting strategy paper published yesterday, the intergovernmental conference White Paper published in February or the Royal Commission report on reform of the House of Lords. Is that not yet further evidence that the Government's programme is simply too large and is squeezing out the other functions of the Chamber—namely, debating matters of public interest?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks. I remind him that my hon. Friends who are looking for improvement in the management of this place are seeking, not a less demanding, but a better managed schedule in which the House conducts its business more efficiently. I will certainly place in the Library the memorandum to which he referred. I thought that that had already been done and I apologise if it has not. I had asked for it to be put in hand.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on Zimbabwe and the licensing laws next week. I will draw both requests to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends. He asked particularly that there should be no trailing of the licensing statement. As he will know, that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is meticulous in his responsibilities to the House. I am aware of yesterday's unfortunate event and I concur with your view, Madam Speaker, that it is unacceptable—as, clearly, does the Department concerned. We will, indeed, remind colleagues and their Departments about the responsibilities that we all have to this House.
On the notion that there is something unusual about the scale of the programme and the other debates that we are not taking now, all hon. Members are perfectly well aware that at this time of year we concentrate on getting the legislative programme under way. The notion that the programme is too large is being fed by some erroneous information that, inexplicably, someone gave to The Times. It suggests that last year only 18 per cent. of the Bills in the legislative programme were introduced. That is, of course, just the Bills that were introduced in the House of Commons, as last year 31 Bills in total were introduced. We have two Houses in this Parliament; all Governments use both Houses and that includes this one. So although this year's programme is, of course, substantial, as people would expect of a reforming Government, it is certainly not unusual.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Following the terrible tragedy that took place in Turkey last night, when two Leeds United supporters—Mr. Speight and Mr. Loftus—lost their lives, I am sure the whole House would want to express its condolences to the families on their very sad loss. In the light of that tragedy, could my right hon. Friend find time for a statement on the safety of British football supporters travelling abroad?

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and will want to offer our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives and to all who were bereaved. I realise that this raises more general anxieties about safety—whether for football


supporters or for other travellers. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on that subject in the near future, but there will be Foreign Office questions next week, so my hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter then. We may also have more information by then.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I endorse the request for an early statement and a debate on the Government's intentions on the reform of the House of Lords? Did the Leader of the House read more leaks from the Government in today's papers, apparently trailing their intentions on the matter? Surely it is inexcusable that such leaks should continue while there has been no statement to the House explaining how long we shall have to put up with a wholly unsatisfactory appointments system for the other place.
Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, she gave me, and other Members who supported me, an explicit promise that there would be a statement and an opportunity to debate the issue of the farm summit? We were given a simple explanation as to the Government's intentions; that was placed in the Library. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he was outlining his proposals.
The right hon. Lady told me:
The discussions are under way and they will be properly reported to the House.
In response to a Conservative Member who supported me, she said that
it is also extremely important that Members have those properly reported to them and have an opportunity to pursue them, and that opportunity will come.—[Official Report, 30 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 498-506.]
There is a real crisis in agriculture. Many Members on both sides of the House are aware that the problems are not being properly addressed. The proposals are only a stopgap; they do not deal with the unsatisfactory situation in respect of the uncompetitive currency. When will we receive that statement?

Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the reports on the Lords to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not aware that anybody has trailed or leaked anything. I am perfectly well aware that all sorts of people are all over the papers continually giving their opinions; that is not the same as the leaking of Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the farm summit. Yes, of course I said that the matter would be properly reported to the House. I believe that it was—through the vehicle of a written answer. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I have said before, proper reporting to the House—as Madam Speaker has repeatedly made clear—includes written parliamentary answers. The timing of the farm summit was not such that it was helpful to the House—or indeed possible—to have an oral statement. There are, and will be, opportunities for the matter to be questioned.
As for the hon. Gentleman's final remarks, I understand that the NFU has written to all members welcoming the package.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there any chance of a statement next week on the difficulty faced by our forces, and indeed, those of other western countries,

in Kosovo, where a situation is developing in which not only are Serbs being ethnically cleansed, but Albanians who do not support the KFA and have fallen out with the KLA are also being cleansed? This is rather an urgent matter.

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House is aware of the difficult situation in Kosovo; no one nurtures any illusions as to the fact that it will continue to be difficult for a considerable period. There are great tensions in the region. However, there will be Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, when, no doubt, such matters can be aired.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on the need to standardise Government language, so that, for example, the word "inflation" means the same for pensioners, whose pensions go up by 1.1 per cent. this month, for taxpayers, who find that their tax allowances are going up by 1.2 per cent., and for motorists, who find that the inflation increase on the cost of fuel is 3.4 per cent? Could we couple with that a debate about the use of the word "next", particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In March, he described next April as April 2000 and, today in answer to questions, he described next April as April 2001. He cannot have been correct both times.

Mrs. Beckett: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that there is some difference in the way that the indices are measured and that the change has been brought about by this Government. It has not; we have not changed the measures that we inherited from the previous Government. If he does not like the way the pensioners index is measured, where has he been for the past 18 years?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will recall that, in the 1980s, a Greater London councillor, Mr. David Wetzel, was responsible for introducing a "fares fair" policy in London whereby all pensioners travelled free on local transport. Other people have tried to claim the credit, but the policy was introduced by Mr. David Wetzel. Can my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on such matters, because we should extend that system nationally? People all over the country look very enviously on what has happened in London.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. However, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Government have just introduced a national scheme that means that pensioners will be entitled to half fares across the country. That is something that the Conservative party conspicuously failed to do.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House not accept that the position with regard to the other place is becoming intolerable? Time and time again, Parliament is demeaned by the appointments that are being made to the House of Lords. Surely it is time the Government introduced proper proposals that could be properly and urgently debated, so that, at the very least, we would know where everyone stands before the next election. The electorate would then


be able to make their judgment about what is going to happen to their Parliament and how far the upper House, in particular, can be accountable to them as the electorate. The matter is urgent; it cannot be put off. Will the right hon. Lady give us a proper answer?

Mrs. Beckett: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling that it is intolerable that, in the House of Lords, the Conservative party, which was so overwhelmingly rejected at the last election, still has a majority of 34 peers over the Labour party. I share his view that that is intolerable. The Government are seeking to address the issue, but obviously everything cannot be done in one fell swoop.

Mr. Jim Cousins: May I return my right hon. Friend to the topic of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which I raised with her last week? She then gave us an indication that the debate on setting the Committee up would be held on Monday in what is normally considered prime time. She has just announced that the matter will not be debated until after the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill and after likely votes at 10.30 on Tuesday evening. Will she assure me that that change did not come about because of pressure from the official Opposition, who have so little regard for the concerns of people in the English regions? Will she also assure me that the change in timing does not in any way reflect a lack of priority that the Government attach to the issue?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall not reveal too much about the discussions that go on through the usual channels, but he will have heard the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) thank me for taking off some of the business that was scheduled for Monday, and my hon. Friend is right to say that this issue was part of that business. In that sense, there clearly was a wish not to take on Monday all the business that had been scheduled for that day. I understand, and I regret, that it has not been possible to put the debate on earlier than its new scheduled time, but I hope that the proposal will find as great a welcome across the House as it does with my hon. Friend—otherwise those who call for a voice specifically for Members representing English seats could be accused of gross hypocrisy.

Mr. Graham Brady: In his role as chairman of the Government's better regulation taskforce, Lord Haskins has made it clear that schools throughout the country are wallowing in a sea of red tape and that the bureaucracy that is being piled on them by the Government is standing in the way of improving standards. Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about what the Government intend to do to stop the endless piling on of red tape and allow schools to manage themselves with proper freedom as to how they get on with their job?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course everyone is very conscious of the importance of giving schools freedom to do their job in the right context. The notion that what the Government

have done bears no relationship to standards is not borne out by the facts, because standards have improved sharply, particularly in maths and, as a result of the literacy hour, in English. My recollection of Lord Haskins' remarks is perhaps a little fuller than the hon. Gentleman's. I recollect Lord Haskins saying that under the previous Government schools were smothered in red tape; he is not happy that this Government have reduced it enough. We shall continue to work at that.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable confusion and a little anger among some of my constituents about the winter fuel payments for males aged 60 to 65? They have been told that they will get the payment, but nothing else. To make matters worse, when one person phoned the Department of Social Security office to ask when he would get the payment, the reply was, "You tell us." People need to be reassured that the payment will be made and backdated, and they need to know when they will get it. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend could arrange for a statement to be made to the House as soon as possible to answer those questions and reassure people.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks at the moment, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I hope that the information can speedily be provided to him and his constituents. I fear that the person whom his constituent contacted has something to learn about taking a customer-friendly approach.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Since the responses of the Leader of the House on the House of Lords are either that it is all very difficult, or that the Government are busy with their reforming Bills, does she agree that it would have been much better for us all if the Government had decided, before they embarked on this venture, what they were eventually going to do, even if they could not have provided the whole of the legislation in a single tranche?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we had that debate in spades in discussions on the House of Lords Bill. As for the notion that we should have made all the decisions before we even embarked on the debate, I know that he is aware, and I am certainly conscious of the fact, that trying to do it that way led to the House of Lords remaining in existence for a further 100 years.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is still the old-fashioned view that if we cannot have a House of Lords based totally on patronage, and if we cannot have one based on an election because that would reflect on the standing of the House of Commons, we should go back to the original Labour party proposal to get rid of the House of Lords, which has now been brought into total disrepute by the actions of the Tory leader in nominating Lord Belize of Sleaze? I have a suggestion: 60,000 miners are queuing up to get their chests X-rayed so as to get their payments, so we should use the House of Lords to settle the dispute for those miners with lung problems.

Mrs. Beckett: I was slightly surprised that it was a Conservative Member today who raised appointments to


the Lords. I understand and respect the case that my hon. Friend puts for a unicameral system. If we decide not to accept that case, there is then a wholly different discussion about what the nature of the second Chamber should be. Much as I share, and I hope the whole House does—I know that all Labour Members do—the concern that my hon. Friend expressed about people in the mining community, and particularly about the suffering that many have endured for many years, I fear that I cannot find time to debate whether they should instead constitute a second Chamber.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the Government's intentions for the management of the fast reactor fuels at Dounreay? My many constituents employed there have been kept in the dark about the Government's intentions for years. They will not have been reassured by a written question from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), due to be answered today, which refers to options. Will the Government arrange for a statement on which they can be questioned?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a statement specifically on the issues relating to Dounreay, although I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of his constituents. However, I can undertake to draw those concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mike Wood: My right hon. Friend will realise that this month sees the third anniversary of the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Will she arrange for an urgent statement about its progress so far, not least on the adequacy or otherwise of its funding?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the commission has made a case for additional staff and that the Home Secretary continues to give sympathetic consideration to that case, having already given the commission more resources at the beginning of last year. I believe that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the not too distant future.

Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady may be aware that Lord Whitty wrote to me recently apologising for the delay in introducing regulations that would allow my constituents at Chester's Croft in Cheadle Hulme, and others similarly affected in the country, to claim the compensation that residents of permanent homes can claim. The residents of Chester's Croft have been classified as living in mobile homes, even though the homes have been there for 40 years. Lord Whitty said that the regulations would be introduced shortly. Will the right hon. Lady endeavour to find out when precisely "shortly" will be, since it is some weeks since Lord Whitty wrote to apologise?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman off the cuff the information that he seeks. I can undertake to contact my noble Friend and ask him to deal as speedily as he can with the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 312?
[That this House notes that international currency speculation currently stands at about $1.5 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to trade in real goods and services; further notes that such enormous speculative flows substantially undermine the powers of national governments and regional blocs; believes that a small levy on such speculation, known as the Tobin Tax after the name of the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both help to dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, raising as much as $250 billion each year for good causes such as development and environmental protection; recognises that such levy would have to be universal or as near to that as possible and contain safeguards to minimise and eliminate tax evasion; notes that the Tobin Tax has the backing of the Canadian Parliament, the Finnish Government and campaign groups such as War on Want; and urges the Government to discuss the concept with its partners in international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, G8 and the European Union with a view to drawing up an internationally co-ordinated and feasible tax regime for currency speculation.]
It has been signed by 100 hon. Members of all parties. Given the horrors that consume the world, especially in Kosovo, Mozambique, Ethiopia and elsewhere, is there not a case for the international community to consider a tax on international currency speculation, which is massive throughout the world and which destabilises economies? May we have a debate on the Tobin tax—the question is: Tobin or not Tobin?

Mrs. Beckett: I feel tempted to let that remark stand alone. Of course the Government accept the importance of trying to promote a more stable international system for handling capital. We have been working hard to that end. Consideration has been given to the ideas that lie behind the proposal for the Tobin tax, but I fear that the Government are not convinced that it is the best way forward at present.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider an early debate on the provision of banking services in rural areas? Would that not give us an opportunity to consider how Barclays can possibly justify closing 172 branches and depriving towns such as Dawlish in my constituency of proper banking services? Would it not also give us the opportunity to hear from the Government at first hand what steps they have taken to defend people in rural areas from the practices of Barclays—apart from the announcement by an Under-Secretary of a ludicrous one-man boycott?

Mrs. Beckett: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituents and I understand the concern that he expresses, which I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I cannot remember great activity on the part of the party that he represents during the years when lots of other things were closing in rural areas, including many banks. One of the reasons why people are so concerned about what Barclays is doing is that this is a further step along the chain. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have set up mechanisms to scrutinise how the banks operate and


whether they do so efficiently, effectively and with regard to concerns raised by others in society. The Government will continue to keep up pressure on the matter.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will have seen reports in the press this week that people as young as 15 are addicted to heroin. In Barnsley, because of the cheapness of a wrap of heroin, the drugs action team considers that heroin is becoming a drug of first use. Will she find time for an early debate on the drugs scene, so that we can consider whether the Government's strategy is in need of adjustment?

Mrs. Beckett: I have seen the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. The whole House will find them disturbing. He knows that the Government continue to keep under review the issues raised by that difficult subject. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the House in the near future, but he might like to explore the possibilities of Westminster Hall.

Mr. James Gray: A moment ago, the right hon. Lady was airily dismissive of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) for a debate about Lord Haskins' report on the overload on head teachers. Perhaps she will listen more carefully to Mr. Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, who states in a report this morning that 93 per cent. of head teachers believe that they are seriously overloaded as a result of the bureaucracy and unnecessary tasks loaded on them by the Government. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her airy dismissal of my hon. Friend's request for a debate, and call for one next week?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not dismiss the request from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), airily or otherwise. I merely pointed out that his recollection was a little partial. Of course the Government recognise that it is important to ease the burden of stuff that goes from the centre to schools, although schools will no doubt welcome the post that they get in the near future, when they receive their cheque as a result of the Budget.

Mr. John Cummings: May I press my right hon. Friend on the matter of banking services? She knows that Judas Iscariot was rewarded with 30 pieces of silver for the betrayal of one man. The chief executive of Barclays is to be rewarded with 30 million pieces of silver for the betrayal of hundreds of thousands of longstanding, loyal customers. In view of the hardship that will be inflicted on my constituents in the village of Easington Colliery, will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate to be held in Government time and in the Chamber on the future of banking services throughout the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. However, I fear that it is not likely that we will be able to find Government time for a debate in the House in the near future on that subject. It is Department of Trade and Industry questions on 11 May, and my hon. Friend might look to that and to other opportunities to raise the matter in the Chamber.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House say whether the country is to be blessed again

this year with another edition of that—perhaps not so popular—glossy brochure known as the annual report, for those who are so dim that they do not realise how brilliant the Government are?
If an annual report is to be published, will the Government show, under the countryside section, how many farmers have gone under in the past 12 months, and the average income of farmers; how many post offices have closed in the past 12 months, and how many are expected to close when the social security payments are changed; how much extra petrol tax people living in rural areas have paid over the past 12 months; and how many rural schools have closed over the past 12 months? Perhaps the report could include the statement from the Minister of State at the Department for Education and Employment, who this week closed one of my rural schools, saying:
Closure seems unlikely to impact greatly on the community, partly because of the already low numbers at the school, and the availability of alternative community facilities.
Does not that clearly demonstrate that the Government do not understand the countryside?

Mrs. Beckett: I have not been thinking much about the annual report, but I expect there will be one, as it is supposed to be annual. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's proposal for one to the attention of those responsible. He and the House may find it slightly surprising that there were substantial sales to the public of that document last year. I am speaking purely from memory, but I think that about 20,000 copies were sold. That may say something about a lack of entertaining reading material, but I can only give the hon. Gentleman the facts.
The hon. Gentleman has given me a useful idea, which I shall certainly pass on to those responsible for the content of the document. It should have an annex, comparing the record of this Government on all the items that he cited with that of the previous Government.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Hon. Members who have a particular interest in housing have waited patiently for three years for a major debate on the subject in the Chamber. This week, the first comprehensive review of housing policy for 23 years was published. I congratulate the Government on that excellent document. Can we please have a major debate in the Chamber before the Government introduce any housing Bills?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I share his welcome for the Green Paper. I take account of his observations about a debate in the Chamber, but I fear that such a debate is unlikely in the near future. I understand his anxiety for no legislative proposals of substance to be introduced before the matter has been more fully debated. I am confident that the Green Paper will allow a forum for such a debate throughout the country.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Modernisation Committee differs from other Select Committees in that it can call any number of hon. Members as expert witnesses. Can we inform its deliberations through a debate in the Chamber about our working hours before we reach any conclusions? Those


of us who sit on the very Back Benches suspect that any change in the arrangements might deny us the ability to scrutinise Bills.
On programme motions, the right hon. Lady will recall that those agreed through the usual channels for the Scotland Bill ensured that many clauses and amendments that were important to Back Benchers were not scrutinised.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, the Modernisation Committee meets to discuss such matters. There is no question of the arrangements for this House being changed as a result of that Committee's deliberations without their being aired and given an opportunity for comment in the House. That is always the case. The arrangements are a House, not a party matter.
To go back as far as the Jopling report, those of us who discussed programming Bills and the scale of discussion agreed to such procedures because they are the best way of trying to ensure that Back-Bench Members scrutinise the provisions of most concern, rather than simply talking them out by accident or through guillotine motions.

Mr. Denis MacShane: May we have an early debate on the applicability of the Register of Members' Interests? If my right hon. Friend reads column 116 of Hansard on 27 March, she will find the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) opining at great length on petrol prices. If she looks at page 116 of the Register of Members' Interests, she will read that the shadow Chancellor is on the payroll of Kerr McGee, the world's third biggest petrol exploration company. The right hon. Gentleman did not register that interest before the debate.
After last week's scandal of the appointment of Baron Belize of Sleaze to the House of Lords because of all the money that he gave the Tory party, is it not clear that sleaze is the soft underbelly of the shadow Cabinet, and at the heart of the Conservative party?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend draws attention to the Register of Members' Interests and the information contained therein. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future.
I am conscious that it is important to keep the register as up to date as possible and that the point of the register is to ensure that information is not hidden. Hon. Members should make it clear in the House when they have interests that are relevant to the debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) did that.

Mr. John Bercow: May we have a debate on the Government's shameful attitude to the future of grammar schools? Such a debate would give the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the chance to explain why he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), have formally abandoned any pretence of neutrality on the subject and now publicly campaign for the destruction of some of our finest state schools in the borough of Trafford.

Mrs. Beckett: I think that I know perhaps a little more about the fine schools in the borough of Trafford than

does the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing shameful about the Government's attitude in making it plain that we want high standards in all our schools, which should be the aspiration of Members in every part of the House, and believe that decisions on those matters should be in the hands of parents. That used to be Conservative party policy, but I notice that it is no longer

Mr. Andrew Love: May I press my right hon. Friend for a debate on the housing Green Paper? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that it represents the first comprehensive statement for 23 years, but I believe that it provides the first real opportunity for Parliament to put right 23 years of neglect and prejudice in housing policy. This is a matter of great concern to my constituents and to people across the Greater London region, and it is important that Parliament's views be taken into account during the consultation, which ends in July.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He has a long track record of campaigning on and pursuing those issues, not only as a Member of Parliament. I can only say that I do not anticipate being able to find time for a debate in the near future. As he will know, at this time of year the emphasis is usually on the progress of Government legislation, but he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have made an important point and I undertake to bear it in mind.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: According to independent and objective House of Commons Library information, typical working families are £13 a week worse off this week, despite the Chancellor's denials and obfuscation. Bearing in mind her responsibilities to the House rather than her membership of the Government, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on whether the Government dispute the independence and objectivity of the information that the Library provides?

Mrs. Beckett: I have long experience of the impartiality of the information provided by the House of Commons Library and of the partiality with which Members read and present it.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is that a confession?

Mrs. Beckett: No, it is a statement of fact. Members on both sides of the House use information to suit their purposes, which is no doubt why people talk of lies, damned lies and statistics. Having announced the Second Reading of the Finance Bill for the week after next, I do not feel the need to provide a further opportunity for those issues to be aired.

Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will have seen early-day motion 595, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), on the United States plan to develop a national missile defence system:
[That this House notes that the United States plans to develop a National Missile Defence system and that President Clinton is due to make a decision about further developments this summer; is concerned that the United


States has asked Russia to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is widely considered to be the cornerstone of international arms control; believes that the deployment of a NMD system could destabilise international relations and result in further vertical and horizontal proliferation; is worried that Britain will collaborate with the United States on NMD through Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire; and calls on the Government to initiate a debate on the advisability of Britain's involvement in these potential and destabilising developments.]
The plan could be globally destabilising and it has been made by an extremely aggressive world power that tends to bomb any enemy that it does not happen to like back into the stone age at every given opportunity. People inside and outside the House are also concerned because the Government may be going along with the system in some way, particularly as RAF Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in Yorkshire may be involved. Can we have a debate or at least a statement by a Defence Minister?

Mrs. Beckett: The Government certainly share my hon. Friend's view that the anti-ballistic missile treaty and broader strategic stability should be preserved, and continue to work to that end. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the specific issue that he raises in the near future, especially as we are to have a defence debate in the next couple of weeks. However, I am sure that he has taken note of and comfort from the fact that his words have been heard by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Ordered,
That the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, amendments to Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule I, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 25, Schedule 3 Clauses 26 and 27, Schedule 4, Clause 28, new Schedules.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Clause 5

RELEASE FROM CUSTODY AFTER CHARGE OR DURING PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 24, line 23, leave out from "imprisonment" to "or" in line 24.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 24, line 48, leave out from "imprisonment" to "or" in line 1 on page 25.
No. 15, in page 25, line 26, leave out from "imprisonment" to end of line.

Mr. Blunt: I am somewhat concerned by the remark made in business questions by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the very Back Benches and wonder whether I am sitting in an unfortunate place. However, I hope that the distinction is not meaningful.
I should first declare my interest as the Bill and these amendments in particular apply to me as a member of the Regular Army Reserve of officers.
So far, the way in which the Bill has been considered has done no credit to the Government and their supporters. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, only one substantive contribution was made by a Labour Back Bencher, and that was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, which had conducted an inquiry into the Bill.

Mr. Graham Brady: That is clearly a record that Labour Back Benchers wish to maintain—not a single one is present now.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. Not one is here.

Hon. Members: There is one.

Mr. John Bercow: But she is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary.

Mr. Blunt: I am, of course, delighted that the Minister is supported by her parliamentary private secretary.

Mr. Robert Key: A Liberal Democrat is present, and we are very glad to see him.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has given me an opportunity to apologise to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), whose name I took in vain in Committee when I said that he was present very rarely. The hon. Gentleman had not told me or the Committee beforehand that, unfortunately, he would be in hospital. If he had told us, we would probably have been gentler with him.

Mr. Blunt: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said.
So far, the Government have accepted none of the amendments that my hon. Friends and I tabled in Committee. Most of those amendments were designed to improve the Bill, and to reduce the substantial burden that it will impose on the armed forces. The problem with the Bill is that it is riddled with peacetime assumptions about—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendments stand in his name. He is now embarking on a Third Reading speech, whereas he should be dealing with his amendments in detail.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I am about to deal with the amendments.
The amendments are concerned with the Bill's effect on both peacetime operations and full operations in time of war. They attempt to improve the Bill, and to allow it to cover all the circumstances in which it will have to operate. I am thinking particularly of circumstances in which people are involved in wartime operations. In such extreme circumstances, the last thing the authorities want to do is detain people. I envisage circumstances in which people have been, in effect, remanded: they are not in custody, but they have a duty to turn up to face trial when required to do so by the authority concerned—in this instance, the judicial officer or the judge advocate.
The problem with the generality of the Bill—on which my amendments focus—is that it makes a number of assumptions about how the military operates. It assumes that we permanently deploy our military in times of peace, or in operations short of war. As Brigadier Ritchie made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee, the last thing the authorities want to do is detain people in the extreme circumstances of wartime, because it consumes resources; but they will want to be pretty sure that those concerned will turn up to face trial. The simple purpose of my amendments is to ensure that, if people fail to turn up, the court martial system can impose appropriate sentences.
1.15 pm
Under the Bill, the sentence is limited to a maximum of two years' imprisonment, which is for going absent without leave, but, in the most extreme circumstances, the accused may be told that he will not be detained because of lack of resources. If he then fails to turn up, it can be an offence equivalent to desertion; if it is an offence equivalent to desertion in the face of the enemy, it is clearly a most serious offence. The simple purpose of the amendments is to remove the two-year limit, so that, effectively, the court can produce a punishment that meets the seriousness of the situation. That would mean that the Bill would suit all circumstances during operations of the greatest seriousness and in time of peace.
I tabled the amendments in Committee. I am grateful that you have selected them again, Madam Speaker, because in Committee the Minister seriously misunderstood their effect. He said:
The purpose of the amendment, which would reduce the punishment that a court martial can impose on an accused for failure to appear at a hearing, is unclear.
That is not the case—the punishment is increased as the amendments would remove the limit.
When the Minister was considering whether to accept or reject the amendments in Committee, he clearly misunderstood their effect, or was misdirected by his officials. I hope that tabling them on Report will give him the opportunity to reconsider his position.
There was a second serious misunderstanding by the Minister: he misunderstood the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Where clause 5(2)(b) applies, the accused,
if he is subject to military law only by virtue of section 131 or 205(1)(ea), (eb), (g) or (h) of this Act—
the Army Act 1955—
may be required to comply.
The Minister clearly had been directed only to what was meant by section 131, not to what was meant by section 205. In his guidance to the Committee, he said:
The clause will not apply to personnel who are still serving; it will apply only to those who have left service but who are subject to a charge from a previous period of service.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 2000; c. 100-01.]
That is not the case.
Section 205 of the Army Act and the equivalent sections in the other Acts make it clear that the measure applies to every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, when in full-time service or when undertaking any training or duties. Subsection (1)(eb)—which applies to me—applies to every officer of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, when in full-time service, when undertaking any training or duty or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve. Similar subsections apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the three services.
I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the facts. On his advice as to how the law stood, I withdrew the amendments and did not press them in Committee. I am sure that that is why you have given me the opportunity to raise the matter again on Report, Madam Speaker.
These simple amendments improve the Bill and enable it to operate in all circumstances, in both peace and war, which was what we were aiming for in Committee. I regret that, in arguing for other amendments in Committee, we failed to convince the Minister. There were rather more Labour Members supporting him in Committee than are present on Report.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister has listened to my argument, and that he will be able to reconsider his position and break his duck in amending the Bill.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for tabling this group of amendments, which gives the Minister an opportunity to clarify the position. In Committee, we were almost wholly constructive in our opposition. Although we had our


moments—a frisson—now and then, those were an attempt to clarify an immensely complicated system of law. People do not really understand the complexity of the three services Acts, each of which has slightly different interpretations and presents slightly different challenges in being applied to the legal system.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the difficulty of imposing any law on the battlefield—or in theatre in anticipation of battle, or, increasingly, in a peace-enforcing or peacekeeping role—and to the fact that we really have to be very precise about what we are asking our commanding officers and courts martial or other courts to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in clarifying the situation, which certainly was not clear in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am sure that the House would expect me to comment on two recent incidents in Northern Ireland before I reply to the debate.
This morning, there was an explosion at Ebrington barracks, Londonderry. This further attack on the security forces is reprehensible. Fortunately, no one was injured. It is yet another crude and cynical attempt by a small number of people to disrupt the peace process by the use of violence. We cannot let them succeed. Investigations into the incident are continuing, and I am not at liberty to comment on it any further.
I was also very sad to learn of the non-terrorist-related deaths of two soldiers and the injury of one other while carrying out operations on Lough Foyle. The circumstances of that tragic incident will be the subject of a thorough investigation. Meanwhile, our thoughts and deepest sympathy are with their family and friends.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mr. Key: May I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks? The attack highlights the danger in which our soldiers—all Her Majesty's forces—are placed while we take for granted the peace in which we live. Many of us have visited our forces in Northern Ireland—indeed, in Londonderry—and I know the dangers that they face daily, even when we think it is peaceful.
May I also associate the Opposition with the sympathy expressed by the Minister for the soldiers who have died or been injured on Lough Foyle and for their families? It is a tragic part of service life that they are prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Dr. Moonie: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful. May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy that have just been made by the official Opposition spokesman? On the first incident, although I do not expect the Government to comment in detail on matters of security, would the House be entitled to assume that, in the event of an incident of the type that the Minister has described, there would

thereafter be an immediate review of the necessary precautions to assure the safety of armed forces personnel serving in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Moonie: Yes. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the case.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I had not intended to intervene, but as the Minister mentioned the first incident, and following the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on behalf of the Opposition—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to have a debate on the matter, as we are in the middle of consideration of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. Proper respect has been shown in relation to the Minister's statement by spokesmen on both sides of the House. I call Dr. Moonie to deal with the amendments.

Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I was about to ask the Minister a question about the consequences of today's incident, and whether he would urge his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, at the earliest opportunity, to make it absolutely clear who were the perpetrators of the incident—the Provisional IRA or a splinter group. The answer has a huge bearing on the armed forces and on the way we may have to deal with the matter in Northern Ireland.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point will have been noted by Ministers. However, as I said, in the middle of our consideration, I am not prepared to take statements on the matter from both sides of the House. Due respect has been shown by hon. Members of the two main Opposition parties.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same matter?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Yes.

Madam Speaker: In that case there is no point of order.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Dr. Moonie will proceed. We are considering the amendments.

Dr. Moonie: Perhaps it would help the House if I explained in some detail the purpose of the clause. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I do not think that I shall be able to accept his amendments.
The offence created by new section 75J(3) of the Army Act 1955, which will be inserted by clause 5, applies only to persons who are not ordinarily subject to service law other than for the purposes of trying the offence with which they are charged. The first category caught by the new offence is those being tried under the service discipline Acts for an offence committed while they were


subject to service law. A simple example of people in that category is ex-regular soldiers. Section 131 of the Army Act 1955 and of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 51 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 provide that such former service personnel remain subject to service law, but only for the purpose of arrest, custody and trial, although they have ceased to be subject to it generally.
The second category is described in the four paragraphs of section 205(1) of the Army Act 1955, which is sufficient illustration of the three Acts. The category includes every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not. I stress the word "special", because those officers constitute a specific category of Territorial Army officer and are to be distinguished from ordinary Territorial Army officers, who are subject to service law at all times and do not fall within the groups that we are discussing. I shall elaborate in a moment on the various definitions, such as permanent or full-time service if hon. Members wish—or perhaps I shall just do it anyway.
The others covered by the offence are: every officer of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not, or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve; every warrant officer, non-commissioned officer and man of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not, or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve; and every warrant officer, non-commissioned officer and man of the Territorial Army when in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not, or when serving on the permanent staff of the Territorial Army.
Permanent service is when someone is called out under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Full-time service is when they enter a commitment to work full-time for the services. Undertaking any training or duty refers to the minimum number of days that they are obliged to undertake by virtue of their membership of a reserve force. They can volunteer for additional duties if they wish. Persons on the permanent staff are known as non-regular permanent staff. They are similar to reserves who have signed up for full-time service, but the terms and conditions differ slightly.
The distinction between different types of volunteer reserve officer arises from the creation of a new category of reserve—those who enter employee agreements under part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. They are referred to as special members. The 1996 Act enables civilians to work in support jobs that would require their services in operations. Persons taking up those jobs agree as an employment term that the post includes a liability for call-out and training. They become a special member of the reserve force.
Because the call-out liability is related to the job and the people concerned are not volunteer reservists in the ordinary sense, they are not subject to service law at all times as an ordinary reserve officer would be. We are satisfied that regular soldiers or serving commissioned officers who are released from custody pending trial can be given a lawful order by their commanding officer to

attend a future hearing. A subsequent failure to attend could result in such service personnel being charged with a service offence.
However, individuals who fall outside that specific but large category of personnel are not necessarily subject to the commanding officer's command and control at all times prior to the trial. Accordingly, in relation to these other individuals, it is necessary for the Bill to create an offence for non-attendance at a hearing after being released from pre-trial custody. In our view, without having specific provision for these two categories of personnel, the Bill will be defective in that such personnel could never be sanctioned for not attending any subsequent hearing. I think that that deals with the second point made by the hon. Member for Reigate about the categories of person that are involved.

Mr. Blunt: Perhaps the Minister could illustrate the position by reference to me. I am on the regular Army Reserve of officers. If I am called out by Her Majesty's Government on permanent service, presumably section 205(1)(eb) would refer to me. I presume that if I were on permanent service, I would be called out only if something extremely serious had happened, such as war. Let us say that I was remanded for trial for an offence in action, which would probably be an extremely serious offence in those circumstances. If I failed to show subsequently—de facto, I had deserted—I would be caught by clause 5. Would I be caught as well under the Army Act? I do not know. If not, presumably I should be. If my offence was serious enough to be the equivalent of desertion, surely a tariff should be available to the court for my non—appearance at the subsequent hearing. That means the removal of the time limit, which is what my amendments would do.

Dr. Moonie: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that that will not set the standard for the length of interventions this afternoon.

Dr. Moonie: I am not sure which section would apply to the hon. Gentleman. If he had listened carefully to what I said, he would understand his position in that context. I do not intend to repeat myself. It would depend on the circumstances in which the services were required.
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the detailed explanation that I gave in Committee of the need for the clause because of the persons to whom the penal provisions within it apply. I accept that that was a complicated explanation, as it was this afternoon. The distinctions between groups of persons subject to service law can be quite subtle. The clause is aimed at those cases where an individual has been released from custody prior to trial and then fails to attend trial.
I recall that the hon. Gentleman was concerned in Committee that the maximum sentence of two years did not take into account the seriousness of absconding in extreme operational circumstances. However, he must remember that the penal provisions of the clause would not apply to service personnel. They are subject to the service discipline Acts at all times and could be charged with a far more serious offence if appropriate. The penal


provisions will apply where they are no longer subject to the service discipline Acts, but are being dealt with for an offence that they are alleged to have committed while they were.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asserted in Committee that a person may well decide that a maximum penalty of only two years is not enough of a deterrent when faced with the possibility of being convicted for a very serious offence, and that he thus may abscond. We should remember that a sentence must be proportionate to the actual offence. One possible offence would be failing to attend court. The sentence must be approached separately from any sentence that is imposed for the offence that is the subject of the proceedings. If the accused is convicted of a serious offence, he will receive appropriate punishment for that offence.
To allow courts to impose long terms of imprisonment when the accused might be acquitted of the original offence would be out of proportion. The sentence is not and should not be linked to the substantive offence, no matter how serious that may be. I might add that the more serious the original offence is, the less likely it is that bail would be granted in the first place.
If a service man fails to attend, he is likely to be charged with being absent without leave, or with failure to attend a duty. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of two years. It should also be remembered that the Crown court cannot impose a sentence of more than 12 months for failure to attend trial, regardless of the gravity of the original offence.
I have given the amendments careful consideration, even though I am not prepared to accept them. However, I think that the Bill gets the matter just about right. The penalty should reflect the offence as it stands. It is appropriate and reasonably in line with civil practice, and I see no reason to change it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: First, I wish to apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who took part in the Committee proceedings on this Bill but who cannot be here today because, long before the business was allocated, he had arranged to bring some 200 of his young constituents to visit the House of Commons. He is therefore occupied elsewhere during this debate.
I hope also that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who introduced the amendment, will forgive me a moment of levity. When he said that he might be called out in an emergency, I leaned over to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and said that, if that happened, gas masks and ration books would be issued at the same time. However, the Member for Reigate used himself as an interesting illustration of his interpretation of this part of the Bill.
It is always a risk to let the lawyers in, but I believe that the deletions proposed in the amendment would cause clause 4(5) to read:
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction by court-martial to any less punishment provided by this Act.
I hope that I am not guilty of misreading the proposal, but that would be a rather infelicitous use of language to try to achieve the amendment's apparent objective.
The Minister's explanation of the possible punishment available under subsection (5) seems entirely reasonable. A penalty of up to two years' imprisonment for a failure to attend would be pretty high up the tariff scale, in anyone's view. One could argue that it was nearly draconian, given the powers available to the Crown court.
I understand the amendment's objective, but it and the others in the group would leave infelicitous language in the Bill if they were accepted. In addition, an unlimited punishment would be available for a failure to attend, and that would be going too far. For that reason, if the amendment were pressed to a vote, I could not recommend that Liberal Democrat Members support it.

Mr. Blunt: I do not believe that the amendment would have the effect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. If the amendment were accepted, clause 5(4) would read:
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction by court-martial to imprisonment or any less punishment provided by this Act.
The Minister gave the game away when he said that people charged with a serious offence would not be granted bail. That goes to the heart of why this and other parts of the Bill are defective. They do not take into account all the extreme circumstances faced by the armed forces. The simple fact is that, in extreme circumstances, people will be released on bail or from custody.
Let us take the example of a person suspected of murdering a colleague. If the case against him could not be established and the circumstances were very extreme—such as those experienced by a unit cut off behind enemy lines—it might not be possible to spare two guys to detain him and lock him up. If the person appeared to be willing to continue to fight for his unit, the decision might be made simply to allow him to do so. The Bill is supposed to cater for all circumstances, whether for current operations or those carried out in wartime. We do not want two sets of disciplinary procedures.
The amendment would simply remove the tariff. I agree with the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that the tariff implies that it is almost inconceivable that there will be such circumstances. It is almost inconceivable, but the Bill must cope with all the circumstances that the military might face.
The Minister has said that he will not accept the amendment, even after the opportunity that he has had for reflection since the Bill was considered in Committee. I will not be pressing the amendment to a Division. However, the Ministry of Defence will be considering legislation on these matters in future, with the next quinquennial Bill and the opportunity to bring the service discipline Acts together.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Fried considered circumstances in which a service man may be charged with a relatively minor offence while evidence is being gathered for a more serious offence with which to charge him? Given that he may abscond before the hearing, and assuming that almost enough evidence has been gathered for him to be charged with the serious offence, it might be appropriate to remand him in prison pending the more serious charge being brought against him.

Mr. Blunt: I confess that I had not considered that possibility. However, it illustrates another reason for the Bill to be flexible enough to cope with every circumstance.
This is a minor point. The situation is unlikely to arise because we will not, I hope, be at war in the next few years when such circumstances might occur. We will have plenty of opportunity to return to these issues, particularly if the Government make progress on bringing the discipline Acts together in a tri-service discipline Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 29, line 24, at end insert—
or—
(c) they are a serving Officer in the Territorial Army or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force who also hold a current practising certificate, issued by the Bar Council, Law Society or Institute of Legal Executives, to practice as a Barrister, Solicitor or Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and who have at least two years post qualified experience'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 29, line 37, at end insert—
'or—
(c) they are a serving Officer in the Royal Naval Reserve who also hold a current practising certificate, issued by The Bar Council, Law Society or Institute of Legal Executives, to practice as a Barrister, Solicitor or Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and who have at least two years post qualified experience'.

Mr. Key: The amendments would allow reservists and other members of the Territorial Army to hold the post of judicial officer, either while on exercise with their respective service or when serving as a full-time reservist. May I say how nice it is to welcome the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who served on the Committee that considered the Bill? I look forward to listening to their contributions this afternoon.
The Bill has many practical difficulties, and these we have made clear to the Government, right through the Committee stage. Unfortunately, the Government seem determined to drive the Bill through without listening to the Committee or the House. We will, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, continue to try and improve what is clearly a flawed measure. The least that we can do for the armed forces is to try and make this wretched Bill work.
The amendments would widen the pool of those qualified to serve as judicial officers. It is clear that there will be insufficient barristers within the armed forces to cope with the proposed changes. Not only will barristers have to continue to prosecute and defend cases, they will now have to exercise their role as judicial officers.
The Territorial Army already has a legal corps. However, the naval reserve does not. Furthermore, the Army and the Air Force recruit civilian lawyers to join their legal corps, but the Royal Navy recruits unqualified personnel from the supply and secretariat branch, and trains them as barristers. The Army and the Air Force can easily step up recruitment, and have done so, but, as legal training is a lengthy process, the Navy is not in the same

position. It is therefore conceivable that some convictions may fail because the Royal Navy cannot put the accused before a judicial officer in time.
1.45 pm
The House will be unsurprised to be reminded that reserve forces provide essential back-up for the regular forces. The reserves contain some qualified lawyers, many of whom may practice criminal law, or even human rights law. They are likely to have a good knowledge of the special nature of service life, backed by expert legal knowledge, and they would make a fine addition to the legal services available to the armed forces.

Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend must be aware of the Inns of Court and City Yeomanry, which is particularly well qualified in this regard.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes my point for me.
The Government savaged the Territorial Army last year, cutting numbers by 18,000 men. The then Secretary of State, Lord Robertson, said that by doing so, he aimed to make the TA more usable and relevant—a memorable phrase. As the former Secretary of State was well known for his sense of humour, people may have thought that he was joking. He was not. The Government have shown themselves to be no friend of the reserves, but have had no hesitation on calling on reserve forces when they need them, as they did last year in Kosovo.
Even after the huge cuts of 1999, the Government continue to salami-slice the budget of what is left of the Territorial Army. No one would deny that the reserves play a hugely important role. It would be an opportunity wasted if we denied appropriately qualified reservists the chance to play their part in the service disciplinary process. I ask the Minister to accept a sensible, logical amendment.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the matter can be dealt with in next year's Armed Forces Bill. My golly, that will be a Christmas tree of a Bill, given all we have heard in Committee about what will be added to it. A great deal is missing from the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. I hope that the Minister will break the habit of a lifetime by conceding that our proposal is sensible and accepting it.

Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened to everything that he said with great care. There was little else to do in Committee, unfortunately. Listening is better than falling asleep, if marginally so. I have promised to consider matters in future, but I certainly have not promised to include them in the quinquennial review Bill. Considering matters for inclusion is quite different from actually including them, but I will of course give points serious consideration where I have said that I will do so.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would allow the judge advocate general or the chief naval judge advocate to appoint as judicial officers volunteer reserve officers who have specified practice certificates or qualifications with a minimum of two years post-qualification experience. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) intends to provide more flexibility in relation to those who may be appointed judicial officers, and that he is trying to be helpful. I fear, however, that it would be a flexibility too far.


Two points are at issue: whether we want to use reserve officers as judicial officers, and the type of qualification and level of experience that we wish them to have. Clause 7 provides for the appointment as judicial officers of only qualified lawyers, including lawyers who are volunteer reserve officers. The amendments, however, would add legal executives to those eligible for appointment. For all their fine qualities and the breadth of their responsibilities in the civilian world, such individuals are not lawyers, and are not, in our view, qualified to serve in a judicial capacity. That assessment is based on the judgment that we made when we drafted the Bill, and is reflected in clause 7. By the same token we do not see a case for varying the qualification period for different categories of judicial officer. It would make nonsense of the legislation if we required lawyers to have at least five years' post-qualification experience before being appointed as judicial officers, but allowed lawyers and legal executives who are volunteer reserve officers to perform that function with considerably less experience.
The issue of length of experience was debated at great length in Committee. I stated then and must do so again that we believe that five years' experience demonstrates a reasonable level of familiarity with the law, so is the minimum period that should apply. I have given the matter serious consideration. I am sorry, but in this case I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am particularly concerned with the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve. Is the Minister aware that in the London division of the RNR a large proportion of serving officers are qualified and well practised solicitors and barristers? I understand his point about those with lesser qualifications, but does it not make sense to make use of the excellent naval and legal experience of those people in the RNR?

Dr. Moonie: If such people are in the Royal Naval Reserve, we will use them. All we are specifying is that they must have five years' experience. For the points I have made that is not an unreasonable stipulation to make.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Clearly, the role of the judicial officer is important, with considerable responsibilities to be discharged. Such responsibilities are best discharged by those who have some maturity and some direct experience of trial or court-martial procedure. For example, it is not possible to become a sheriff—a middle ranking judge—in Scotland with less than 10 years in practice, whether as an advocate—the Scottish equivalent to a barrister—or a solicitor. So it is right to set a minimum level of experience if people are to be invited to carry out extremely important responsibilities which bear on the rights and freedoms of individual citizens or, in this case, of individual members of the armed forces. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister said in relation to the five-year qualification period.
When the Minister responded to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), however, he said that there were two questions: whether we wanted to use reserve officers and of the experience of those who might fall into that category. He answered the second question, but I did not

understand him to answer the first: whether the purposes of the Bill could be served by the use of reserve officers. He came back to it obliquely at the end of his remarks. Perhaps he could make it clearer whether he is satisfied that the existing arrangements without the amendment allow for the utilisation of the very people who were mentioned a moment ago in an intervention as reserve officers in all three services with the requisite legal experience to take part in proceedings of the kind that we are considering and to fulfil the responsibilities of judicial officer. To cut out that group of people would be to waste a valuable resource which could be of great assistance in achieving the objectives of the Bill.

Mr. Gray: I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly in regard to the Territorial Army. I wish to qualify his question to the Minister in one particular way. These people need not be officers. The Inns of Court and City Yeomanry and the Honourable Artillery Company have banisters of great qualifications who are of other ranks.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right to pull me up on that matter. One of the curious features of the Territorial Army is that people serve in it as a private or corporal who outside occupy positions which, on the face of it, would be equivalent to rather higher ranks if their outside position were reflected in their rank in the TA. So although I am with the Minister on the question of experience, I am by no means convinced that he has dealt with the issue in so far as it relates to the availability of valuable resources in the shape of reserve officers qualified to fulfil the functions outlined in the Bill.

Mr. Blunt: I have listened to the arguments, and have some concerns both about the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and about the proposition advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
Shortly, the Minister will correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Dr. Moonie: indicated assent.

Mr. Blunt: The Minister will say that, if members of the Territorial Army meet the qualification of having been members of the Bar for five years, they would be suitable as judicial officers. That would meet my concern about the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife.
As I understand it, the amendment would mean that members of the TA and other reserve forces, who have some experience of service matters, would have to go over a lower hurdle in respect of the legal experience required to serve as judicial officers. My concern is that those TA officers would be undertaking, with less legal experience, a judicial duty that the Government believe to be necessary because of the Hood judgment at the European Court of Human Rights. That case led to these provisions in the Bill, because, under the European convention on human rights, commanding officers are not considered to be independent and thus not capable of taking decisions on custody and remand into custody. That is why the first part of the Bill was introduced.
I am concerned that, instead of the simple five-year tariff for lawyers to exercise the function of judicial officer that applies to members of the regular Army and


the other regular forces—which I believe to be unnecessary—members of the TA would be in the peculiar position of only needing to have held a judicial qualification for two years in order to sit in judgment on members of the regular Army. We need to avoid that situation. It could create legitimate resentment among members of the regular forces, because someone with a TA commission, possibly with limited reserve experience, might be put in judgment over members of the regular forces without the legal tariff of five years core experience that the Government have decided is necessary.
As an ex-regular, I should be worried if a judicial officer, with only limited territorial or reserve experience and limited legal experience, sat in judgment over members of the regular Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Sayeed: I understand the point my hon. Friend makes about two years and five years. However, is not it true that those in the reserve forces would be full-time lawyers? In the Navy, many of those who become legally qualified are only part-time lawyers. They come from the supply and secretariat branch and qualify as lawyers, but they do jobs other than legal ones in different postings. Although they may be time-qualified, their quantum of legal work is rather less.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is right. However, we are considering a point about lawyers who will sit in judgment on members of the regular forces. In my view, it is right for commanding officers and the chain of command to take decisions on custody and on remand into custody. There was no problem about that until that one case was brought under the European convention of human rights. If the armed forces were not subject to the convention, because, 49 years ago, we had had the wisdom and foresight to negotiate a reservation for them, we should not be having to introduce provisions about decisions on custody being made by someone so obviously independent as a lawyer of five years' standing rather than allowing the CO and the chain of command to make the decision in the first place. We are in this position, and the Government have yet seriously to examine the routes that would get us out of it. As we are clearly caught by the Hood judgment, this clause is regrettably necessary.
2 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to officers in the Royal Navy; some are lawyers and some are not. If, in their capacity as lawyers, they detained sailors in custody on judicial hearings, they would be acting at least as serving regular officers of the Royal Navy. The problem with the amendment is that people with limited Territorial Army and legal experience could sit in judgment on issues of custody that used to be considered by commanding officers who were respected and who operated under a system that was respected. If that happened, it could cause resentment in the Army and the regular forces, so it should be avoided.

Mr. Key: I suspect that had we been talking about medical matters, the term "skill fade" would have been heard in the debate. What my hon. Friend the Member for

Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said was important and it justifies the amendments. We are talking about people who practice law and soldiering and we have to consider what happens if there is crossover between the two roles.
I listened carefully to the Minister. In an almost throwaway line, he confirmed that the Government would use members of the Territorial Army if they were qualified in his terms. If I am wrong, perhaps he would like to clarify the matter.

Dr. Moonie: I will clarify the matter, even though I thought that I had made it perfectly clear, as I think the record will show.
Volunteer reserve officers who meet the qualifications in paragraphs (a) of the new sections will be eligible for appointment any way without need for modification to the Bill.

Mr. Key: That is exactly what I thought the Minister had said, and it gives us some satisfaction. We had hoped, however, that we could widen the pool of expertise by varying the qualifications necessary.
We shall have to return to the issue. We are all aware that we are being invited to stumble down a path and, no doubt, the Bill will have to be repaired and patched up. It is remarkable that not a single Government amendment has been made in Committee or on Report, and only a handful were made in the other place.

Mr. Blunt: A point has just occurred to me. The issue turns on the definition of independence in the European convention. Are the Territorial Army officers who are lawyers not as independent as those lawyers who are not Territorial Army officers? If regular Army officers who are lawyers assume the role of judicial officers, will they meet the test of independence? Has the Minister considered that point?

Mr. Key: I cannot speak for the Minister. However, I suspect, in terms of compliance with the European convention, he would say that regular and Territorial Army officers are all part of the chain of command and that that is the issue. That is my understanding.
I shall not detain the House any longer. We have been around the course on the amendments and I am sorry that the Minister has not conceded on them. It has been worth while probing on this issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

CUSTODY RULES

Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 30, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
'(3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 31, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
'(3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Key: The purpose of the amendments is clear: they would provide for closer parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State's ability to make rules regulating proceedings preliminary to, and at, a custody hearing. The rules apply to the arrangements to set up videolinks.
In this remarkable clause there is a long list of items for which the Secretary of State can make provision in making rules. That list includes items that we might expect: arrangements preliminary to the proceedings; the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate; the admissibility of evidence; procuring the attendance of witnesses; the immunities and privileges of witnesses; the administration of oaths and so on.
At the end of that list, subsection (3) says:
Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
We are being asked to agree to those statutory instruments being made under the negative procedure, whereas they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We realised in Committee that the Minister has set up arrangements that are uncertain—and, frankly, if I were facing a court-martial or summary proceedings, I would want to be sure about the processes to which I was to be subject.
In Committee, I challenged the Minister to demonstrate a videolink in action. That was a reasonable request, given that many of the Bill's provisions relate to the use of such links on active service. I asked for a demonstration of a videolink between the House of Commons and Pristina in Kosovo, because we had repeatedly been told that such links were in regular, indeed daily, use and that there was no problem with that.
I made my request on a Tuesday and suggested that by the time we met on the Thursday, the Minister might have been able to set up a videolink to allay the Committee's fears. However, the Minister did not turn up with the goods, and his reason was that
the equipment we used for the trial was hired and is no longer in our possession. When one thinks about that it is quite natural.
I have to disagree; I do not think that it is at all natural. Ministers have been telling both Houses that the technology exists, that it is in frequent use and that it is widely available.
On that occasion, the Minister rounded off his comments by saying:
We will enter a proper system of purchasing once we have decided exactly what we want to use.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 March 2000; c. 187.]
I remind the Minister that we have a deadline of 2 October, when the Bill will come into force if it is passed today. It would be very smart procurement indeed to get all the kit necessary by then.
Far from being a tried and tested system, it seems clear that we are dealing with an untried and untested system. Even worse, the whole basis of our armed forces discipline system on operations will henceforth be dependent on those untested videolinks.
It is also notable that the Minister's comments contrast rather drastically with those of the Minister for Defence Procurement in the other place. On 16 December, she said:
The services are fully capable of exploiting successive advances in technology, which they already deploy with great success. Video technology is in day-to-day use. It was in constant use throughout the recent crisis in Kosovo. The armed services see no reason why that technology should not be deployed equally successfully in other operational environments and for purposes such as those envisaged in the Bill.
Clause 8 includes the introduction of the use of live television links as a means of fulfilling the new custody rules, particularly when the logistical circumstances may be difficult. The clause was slightly amended by the Government in Committee in the other place to broaden the use of the technology to all custody hearings, and not only those being brought before a judicial officer. The amendments in the other place also clarified the fact that live television links and visual transmissions could be undertaken via other media, such as the internet.
With regard to the practicalities of using video equipment, the Minister for Defence Procurement said in the other place:
I hope to offer the Committee some reassurance on that point. I shall refer to the Army in particular, since it is likely to have the greatest number of personnel in remote locations. The Army would seek to use video link technology where operational or training circumstances mean that a face-to-face hearing is not possible within the required time-frame—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999: Vol. 608, c. 351.]
On Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that the MOD was
currently trialling video equipment to ensure that the quality of the equipment is suitable for the purpose for which it will be used. The equipment currently used operates at 28 kilobytes. The equipment is capable of showing a wide-angle picture of an entire room or of zooming in on an accused in fine detail, just as it is used in court hearings, especially those involving children. Although we can use Inmarsat—the international maritime satellite—commercial links, there is no question that commercial television satellites would be used, because we have access to other means of communication.—[Official Report, 17 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1201.]
The Defence Committee was also intrigued to be told about video conferencing. The director of personnel services for the Army explained to the Committee that video conferencing happened already. Apparently, there are daily video conferences with Pristina. It was unfortunate that we were not allowed to see that. The director had spoken to a judge advocate on a video conference facility as part of a trial. The judge advocate will have a portable system at home with him, and it will be possible to dial him up almost literally at any time. There will also be static video conferencing suites and portable systems that can be taken home, so a duty judicial officer will be available who can be wired up to pretty well anywhere in a world because, as the director said:
IT-wise now, wherever our soldiers go, we have the IT system.
In Standing Committee the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was a little more bullish. She said:
Generally speaking, video conferencing is up and running, but it needs to be trialled for the purposes of the Bill.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 March 2000; c. 171.]


I found that surprising because on 1 February I received an answer to a parliamentary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. I asked her if she would
list the companies that supply, provided and service secure videolink technology for use in British courts; and what arrangements are in place to prevent the interception of transmissions by third parties.
The Minister replied:
Videolink technology is used occasionally in the Crown Court to enable witnesses to give evidence from abroad. The installation is arranged locally by the party whose witness is giving evidence in this way. No information is held centrally on the suppliers used or the arrangements put in place to prevent interception. A pilot is currently in place to provide a videolink between Strangeways prison and the Crown Court in Manchester.—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c.545W.]
So on 1 February that was the extent of the Government's experience.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department took part in the Standing Committee and that when Ministers have assisted in taking a Bill through its Committee stage, it is a courtesy to the House that they should be present in the Chamber on Report to assist the House with their evidence and continue to give their support?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend and I both served as Ministers in the previous Government and I wholly agree with him, but then we are not dealing with a normal Government. We saw from the lack of contributions from the Back Benches in Committee that we are dealing with a steamroller rather than a Government.
Between 1 February and when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke to our Committee, the Government's experience had changed. The Minister noted that the Judge Advocate General was satisfied that the equipment worked and further explained that the video equipment was portable. She said that the equipment was the size of a suitcase. It sounds to me a bit like "Mission Impossible". While it was clearly acceptable for the Judge Advocate General to examine the technology in action, it was not possible for the Members of the House charged with scrutinising the Bill to see it working.
In their eagerness to get the Bill on the statute book, the Government seem to have got ahead of themselves. They set the Bill's provisions with blasé faith that videolinks would work in the prescribed circumstances.
2.15 pm
Our inquiries have shown that video conferencing for the purposes of the Bill is still at the trialling stage. The equipment has not been proven, yet it remains at the heart of the Bill's provisions. In Committee, we also raised concerns about the security of videolinks. Once again, the Government failed to give adequate reassurance. We were told that interception was possible. I have made the point that in a modern television war, in which visual propaganda can prove an immensely effective weapon, as has been so ably demonstrated by the Iraqis and then the Serbs, one dreads to think what would happen if a disciplinary visual feed were intercepted. The Minister said that the narrow beam width would prevent interception by casual hacking and eavesdropping. I wonder how many intelligence surveillance operatives engage in casual hacking activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) also raised the important point that such transmissions were not only vulnerable to interception but left an electronic signature that could betray an unit's presence and location—a signature that could provide the aiming point for a guided weapon. The lack of firm and convincing answers is the reason why we are seeking to amend the Bill so that the rules governing the use of the technology are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The House needs a second look at this issue. The Government cannot gamble with our armed forces' operational effectiveness in this way. We hope that they will not seek to override the legitimate right of Parliament to see that only sound and thoroughly considered legislation emerges from this place. It is a matter of pure practicality. We believe that simply to trust the Secretary of State to make rules is against the interests not only of Her Majesty's forces but of natural justice. It is against the interests of natural justice that we are asking people to be tried in front of a video camera system that is unreliable, can be intercepted, and for which the technology does not yet exist. Yet, by 2 October, the Government plan to have the Bill up and running and in operation on a daily basis. We are very doubtful about that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have some sympathy with the amendment, but not because I know much about videolinks and such matters. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path, although he made a number of trenchant points. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would require the rules in the clause to be the subject of affirmative rather than negative resolution. The distinction between the two is often a fine one, but I have always understood that under the affirmative resolution procedure, the House of Commons is asked to engage more intimately in the process so as to pass judgment on the matters that are contained in subordinate legislation.
Clause 8(2) at the top of page 30 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, says that rules may be made in relation to a number of matters. One can draw a distinction between rules made for essentially procedural issues such as
arrangements preliminary to the proceedings; the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate;…the administration of oaths;…the appointment of persons to discharge administrative functions under the rules
and other elements of the criteria that fall into a rather different category, namely:
the admissibility of evidence;…the immunities and privileges of witnesses.
The admissibility of evidence may go right to the very heart of the proceedings and whether the proceedings will be held to have been concluded in a way that is favourable or adverse to the person who is the subject of them. Immunity for witnesses in certain circumstances means that witnesses may be available to give evidence in the knowledge that they can give evidence that might on the face of it incriminate them, but which cannot be used on subsequent occasion to institute proceedings against that person. Those are issues of fundamental importance but of a different character to the procedural arrangements that the rest of the subsection appears to embrace. That is why there is some justification for the view that, if rules


are to be made in relation to the admissibility of evidence, the immunity of witnesses and the consequences of that immunity for subsequent proceedings, the House of Commons ought to pass judgment on those rules by way of affirmative resolution rather than accepting them by way of negative resolution.
These are matters more of legal importance than of military significance, but the purpose of the Bill is to put in place proper legal structures affecting the incorporation into the law both of Scotland and of England and Wales of the provisions of the European convention on human rights.
Admissibility of evidence and the immunity of witnesses are precisely the kind of issues that human rights lawyers would regard as being embraced by that convention. That is why the Minister should consider giving effect to the amendment, at least in so far as it relates to subsections (2)(c) and (2)(e), and why I have some sympathy with the amendment and the purpose that lies behind it.

Mr. Viggers: The debate is taking place only because of the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires the European convention on human rights to be incorporated in our law by 2 October 2000. It is crucial that any legislation that we enact be compliant with the convention. Frequently in Committee the Minister answered points put to him by saying that it was essential that we should ensure that the law is compliant—a word that we heard many times—with the European convention.

Mr. Blunt: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we heard many times that it was necessary to be compliant, we were never given the benefit of the legal advice upon which the Government had come to their conclusions—conclusions which the Opposition would almost certainly dispute?

Mr. Viggers: Indeed, and when the Minister was cross-examined as to whether he could confirm that we would be compliant, his line throughout was that we must, if necessary, err on the side of compliance; we must not take risks with compliance; we had found ourselves not to be compliant in the past—if in doubt, so to speak, surrender. That motto is not, I think, a cap badge of any known Army unit.
We need to ensure that the detailed provisions are compliant. The details listed are quite wide. Rules will be made in relation to

(a) arrangements preliminary to the proceedings;
(b) the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate;
(c) the admissibility of evidence;
(d) procuring the attendance of witnesses;
(e) the immunities and privileges of witnesses;
(f) the administration of oaths;
(g) circumstances in which a review…may be carried out without a hearing;

and so on.
We are trying to ensure that we are compliant with article 6 of the European convention. The principal statement in that article is that
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The subsidiary points include, under (d), a person's right
to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.
How can we be absolutely certain that the European convention will be complied with, under the rules proposed by the Government? How can we be sure that the European convention will be satisfied if the attendance of a witness is by way of video conferencing? That is a crucial point. What does "attendance" mean? Does it mean attendance in a room physically with the accused, or in attendance by a video recording?
If we do not know the answer to that, and if attendance does not have the usual meaning, but means visibility through a videolink, and if the European convention does not accept that attendance means presence through a videolink, we will not have complied with the convention and we will have wasted our time dealing with the clause.
Therefore it is important, as we move into the unknown territory of trial through the medium of video conferencing, that there should be every opportunity for the House, the nation and the armed forces to have the expert advice and comment of lawyers conversant specifically with the law of the new media.
The Minister who gave specific, expert evidence on the subject to the Committee was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. It was helpful that she was present and able to give us authoritative advice. It is unfortunate that, typically of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary is not present to advise the House as the Bill moves through Report and Third Reading. It would have been helpful to have her with us.
However, we can demand and should expect as of right that the Government accept that the provision should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, if it is to pass into law; that the House should have a further opportunity to discuss the clauses and the rules in the light of expert advice which can be given outside the House; and that we are given another bite at the cherry on the rules. I therefore support my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Martin Bell: I try to make it a rather seditious principle in the House to speak only about what I know about, which is why my speeches are so few and so short. I can claim to know something about videolinks, because I lived and worked by them for many years.
It was an honour to serve on the Standing Committee scrutinising the Bill. I must thank the Liberal Democrats who, I believe, were suffering from overstretch at the time and gave me one of their seats on the Committee. I found it an intersting experience, and in some ways rather dismaying.
I appreciate what was said in the House yesterday: we do, indeed, have a Government who listen—a Government who listen to themselves. I was struck by the quiescence of those on the Benches behind the Ministers who were speaking. I would have hoped that in a democracy there would be more of a dialogue both


between Government members and between the Opposition and the Government. We could have achieved a lot more if we had been more collaborative.
There are issues that give rise to serious concern. We are not simply constructing a law that will conform to the convention. We are trying to protect the rights of serving men and women. As the Secretary of State knows, there have been some flagrant and disturbing cases in recent years. We have tried to address those.
On videolinks, we are dealing with custody hearings. We are speaking of the life of a serving man or woman—freedom or the denial of it for some time to come. What is important is not only the words spoken, but the demeanour. That is vital, both face to face and on the end of a videolink.
Demeanour and the perception of it can be affected not only by words, but by the lighting, the sound, the quality of the videolink, and the camera angle. I will not say that the camera lies, but it certainly shades the truth. Professionals know that if they want to give a good impression of someone, they shoot him from a certain angle, and if they want to undermine someone, they shoot him from another angle.
Serious issues are involved. As a sole independent, I lack the numbers necessary to move an amendment, but if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) chose to hold his ground on this, I should be delighted to vote with him.

Mr. Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who made some important points arising from his own experience.
I shall deal with two points—first, the use of the negative procedure on statutory instruments. I disapprove of secondary legislation. One of the problems is that it is unamendable. As we get more practice in the use of video links, we will want to change the legislation in subtle ways. It is therefore important that when we come to make those changes, as we will have to do, subtle amendments can be made.
The Government may say that if it becomes clear during a debate that a statutory instrument is wrong, they will rewrite it and present it to the House again. However, since they have been power I know of no occasion on which they have reconsidered and amended a statutory instrument after a debate in Committee. They may say that they will do that, but I doubt it. A statutory instrument cannot be amended by negative procedure. That is a fundamental problem with the system, and with the Government's offer of presenting a statutory instrument through the negative procedure as a method of making changes in future.
2.30 pm
My second point is about video links. The hon. Member for Tatton made some good points. It is also important to consider the views of Kingston TLI, the specialist company which handles armed forces television. The company pointed out that even a land-based system costs £300,000 to £350,000. Rental and personnel costs must also be taken into account. However, leaving aside the costs, we must consider the practicalities of establishing a video link.
The Government talk about the way in which the Army would set up such a link, and I appreciate that the Army has more personnel. However, it is easier to establish a

video link on land than at sea. It is easier because, for example, there tends to be a better supply of electricity and electronic silence is not such a problem.
Baroness Symons said:
Video tele-conferencing is also used in Kosovo and was used regularly in Bosnia.—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 353].
She said it was easy to use. However, it is important to know the views of the experts, in this case Kingston TLI. Its comments support what the hon. Member for Tatton said. According to the company, to produce broadcast quality results, data have to be transmitted at a rate of 8 megabits per second. Inmarsat is capable of only 128 kilobits per second, which will support only low quality conferencing. While it has the advantage of being bidirectional, it gives a poor and jerky image.
What does that mean? I shall take ships as an example because I know a little about them. In a ship on normal operations, much of the band width may be used. There will therefore not be much left for other, less immediately important matters. The ship may not have the requisite equipment, or if it does, it may be sending a video signal of a person who will be in danger of losing his liberty in a fashion that may prejudice his chances.
The Bill includes a 48-hour rule on custody. Ships run electronically silent for long periods to evade an enemy. The Minister may claim that there would be no video conferencing if the ship was in conflict and we could wait until it was in safer waters. The 48-hour rule means that that does not wash. It may be necessary to secure a person in the way in which a commanding officer was entitled to do before the introduction of the Bill. However, he will not be able to do that because, under the 48-hour rule, a person who can be contacted only by video link has to authorise the detention.
As I have said, ships run electronically silent for long periods. In such circumstances, it will not be possible for the ship to broadcast because it would thus reveal its position. A commanding officer will not necessarily be able to get permission to secure a person during the 48-hour period. I wonder whether the Minister has considered that.

Dr. Moonie: If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read the Committee proceedings, he would realise that we have already dealt with that point at great length.

Mr. Sayeed: I have looked at the Committee proceedings—

Dr. Moonie: I said "read".

Mr. Sayeed: I also read them. Having looked at and read them, I do not believe that the Minister has dealt with the point adequately. We need to ensure that, if the equipment is on board a ship and it needs to be used, the time limit is sufficient to allow those in the Royal Navy to use the provisions.
The Government's proposals on the use of statutory instruments and the rules for video links do not allow for subtle amendments to take account of experience. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Blunt: I do not want to detain the House, but I wish to register my support for the amendment because


of the enormous difficulty of phrasing and creating the statutory instrument. The Parliamentary Secretary has now disappeared; she replied to the debate when the subject was considered in Committee. She said that she hoped that it would be drafted by May, but that it would be introduced as soon as possible. We were told that the limiting factor was the availability of parliamentary counsel. However, I believe that it is the sheer difficulty of producing the statutory instrument in a manner that will withstand legal challenge.
I look forward to the Minister's comments. I hope that he will be able to tell us when the statutory instrument will be introduced, even in draft. The Committee should have been able to examine it, but the Government failed to produce it. The least we can expect is that the affirmative rather than negative procedure will be u sed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I ask whoever has the electronic device to silence it or leave the Chamber.

Mr. Blunt: I want to register my support for my hon. Friend. I perceive many difficulties with the measure; therefore the rules should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure.

Dr. Moonie: We covered video conferencing at great length in Committee and on Second Reading. Despite the ingenuity of tying the matter to the technical amendment that we are considering, I do not intend to spend much time covering it again.
Use of video links in operational and commercial circumstances is now an everyday occurrence. The Ministry of Defence regularly uses video conferencing to communicate with our forces and allies all over the world. We do not depend on commercial satellite for video links.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) again used the misprint in Hansard on Second Reading. The correct figure is 128 kilobits per second, not 28. I must correct that or others will believe that I do not know what I am talking about; in this case, I do. I know a lot more than Opposition comments suggest that Conservative Members know.
The judge advocate general and his staff were involved in a trial of video conferencing equipment for custody hearings in February. They are satisfied that the equipment is suitable. The judge advocate general said:
I am not satisfied that the equipment I have seen demonstrated is adequate for hearings to be conducted in a fair and safe manner.
We are not discussing trial. We are improving the rights of people who can be put in custody without review by a judicial officer and the same standards as might apply in a trial do not apply here. As the judge advocate general has said, the quality available is perfectly adequate to allow a judicial officer to make a fair—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although I did not mean to stop him mid-sentence. I was not a member of the Committee, but I took an interest on Second Reading and have attempted to read significant portions of the Committee proceedings. Practicability comes to mind.

In a battle or semi-battle situation, what would be the practicability of using video equipment? Has that been discussed with the judge advocate general? Can he summarise how he expects it to be used? Does the qualification "as soon as practicable", which one finds in various passages, provide a let-out or not?

Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that it does. That is why those words have been used. Again, we covered the matter at length in Committee. Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not had the advantage of reading those debates, but the point is to recognise that there are operational situations in which, with the best will in the world, we cannot always apply the conditions that we should like to. He is quite right: I should not have stopped mid-sentence because I have forgotten where I was and am unable to complete my remark.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course the Minister knows exactly what happened in Committee. If he gives me a day and a Hansard column number to refer to I shall be most grateful.

Dr. Moonie: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's gratitude will have to wait, because I have no idea of the day on which we discussed this matter. However, I assure him that I gave the Committee reassurance on the flexibility that we intend to build in to cover the operational situations he has described.
To deal with the substance of the amendment, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department conveyed my regret that the rules to be made under the clause were not ready for publication. However, I undertook to have the instruments available in May and my officials are diligently working to that timetable. I understand hon. Members' desire to see the rules in draft. A great deal of detail will go into them and I accept that their content is vital to the efficient working of the system, but I do not believe that subjecting them to the affirmative procedure is the answer.
A key purpose of rules made under secondary legislation is flexibility. That flexibility is essential in this case to ensure that we are able to adapt the rules to reflect changes in circumstances, procedures and best practice. The amendment would mean that any, even minor, changes in our rules over the years ahead would have to be subject to further debate in both Houses. I would think a lot more of Conservative Members' opposition to the negative procedure if they had expressed it a bit more often when they were in power. I do not recall any of the Conservative Members sitting over there voicing such opposition at any time while I have been a Member of the House, other than in opposition. The negative procedure is convenient and well established in practice.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I must correct the Minister. I frequently lobbied for reform of that procedure and shortly before the end of the previous Parliament put my name to a measure that proposed an initiative for such reform, although I cannot quote the date of the Hansard concerned. I agree that reform is needed


urgently, but may I reverse the point? What are the new Labour Government doing to improve the farce of the House's treatment of secondary legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can excuse the Minister from answering that wider question.

Dr. Moonie: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, it is interesting that his disloyalty in government has been rewarded with a post in opposition. [Interruption.] I would very properly be ruled out of order if I mentioned the single currency.

Mr. Sayeed: The Minister's comment about reform was also directed at me. I assure him that if he goes back far enough—probably to 1986 or 1987—he will find that I was one of those who supported my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) when he said that he strongly deprecated all secondary legislation.

Dr. Moonie: I disagree completely. Secondary legislation is very useful, particularly when the negative procedure is involved, and can be dealt with reasonably quickly.
This matter has been examined by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of the House of Lords, which gave its usual careful consideration to the rule-making powers sought by the Bill, including those under the clause. Its report accepts the proposed use of the negative procedure and states that the Committee has
considered carefully whether it is appropriate that a power wide enough to regulate the admissibility of evidence and the immunities of witnesses should not be subject to affirmative procedure. The rules will be part of a framework consisting of existing legislation and subordinate legislation made under it. The whole will have to be compatible with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Against that background the Committee can accept that it is appropriate that the rules should be subject to negative procedure …
Because of that, and for the other reasons that I have outlined, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Key: My goodness, is not Parliament a menace when it gets between the Executive and its clients? I am sorry that the Minister is being so scratchy, but his scratchiness makes the point that we have won the argument hands down, and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends. He failed to address the point about video links, both now and in Committee, and the Government have failed to make the case. We are discussing the affirmative procedure as a principle. It is no good banging on about what might or might not have happened under previous Governments—he is in charge now—and if he thinks that reform is a good idea, and if he thought that it was a good idea then, why does not he do something about it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggests?
There is another important point here. The Minister quotes the judge advocate general and says that he is satisfied, but he does not happen to be a Member of the House of Commons who has to decide what is in the interests of justice for our armed forces. We have to take that decision and we are not satisfied. That is what the

Minister has to realise. The matter is not a simple one of him stitching something up with some important part of the Ministry of Defence without consulting the House.
Having won the argument hands down and in view of the time pressure that we face with protected business to follow, it would not be responsible to take a quarter of an hour out of these brief proceedings to put the amendment to the vote, knowing that some 300 absent Members of the House will flood in to support the Government.

Mr. Blunt: The number of absent members are not 300 but about 400.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. It is significant that the other 400 are waiting outside, even though only six or seven Labour Members are present.
We had better put the Minister on probation and we shall be watching extremely carefully. No amendments have been made, which is most peculiar.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: We were focusing on the practicability of the use of video links and the delay that might be permitted in battlefield situation. My hon. Friend was present throughout in Committee. Was he satisfied with the Minister's answers? In a sentence can he tell us what he said about flexibility and practicability? What's my hon. Friend's opinion?.

Mr. Key: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, and I was wholly dissatisfied with the Minister's responses in Committee. He said that it was unlikely that such circumstances would arise in a battlefield situation and said the same on the issue of discipline. We were also told that, should they arise, the accused person would be withdrawn from the battlefield. He and the Government are on probation. We shall no doubt return to these matters, either when we consider the Armed Forces Bill or at a later stage. Bearing in mind all that and the moral victory that we have scored in the argument, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

RIGHT TO ELECT COURT-MARTIAL TRIAL

Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 32, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) The Defence Council may by regulations make provision designating those persons who, either before or after the accused has elected for trial by court-martial. may counsel him on that decision'.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure—[Interruption.] Oh, I wonder whether we should pause at this point in order to call back some Members who seem to have decided to leave the Chamber. No; we are back to our usual small team.
The purpose is to ensure that, either before or after the accused has made his or her decision to be tried by court martial, no person will be able to force the accused to change his or her mind, and opt to have the matter dealt with summarily.
The amendment underlines the problems that the Bill creates, rather than solves. The same theme runs throughout the Bill. By introducing a potentially


cumbersome and unnecessary opportunity for people to opt for court martial at the beginning of proceedings, the Government will create tensions within units. It is easy to imagine how aggrieved the non-commissioned officers and the commanding officer of a unit would be should one of their subordinates opt for court martial for a minor offence. That would convey the message—whether true or otherwise—that the unit was not being run well, and that the men did not have confidence in their superiors. It would certainly not reflect well on the commanding officer: it would give the impression that he was not in control of his unit-hence our assertion that the Bill undermines the authority of commanding officers.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a former barrack-room lawyer—

Mr. Sayeed: Former?

Dr. Godman: I shall not respond to that. I am asking a question.
Can the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) give us an example or two of designated advisers? In the case of a private soldier, would the adviser be a regimental sergeant-major or, perhaps, a civilian?

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman, who I understand was a redcap, is aware of the issues. I promise him that I will come to his point, if he will hold his horses for a moment.
As always, Conservative Members have an eye on how things operate in the real world, rather than on the clean-cut, perfect fairytale land in which the Government seem to think our armed forces operate. We tabled our amendment with an eye on how forces discipline works in practice.
When the matter was considered in another place, my noble Friend Lord Attlee tabled an amendment similar to this one. As a serving member of the Territorial Army, he felt strongly that the new system allowing the accused to choose court martial for almost any offence was open to abuse by the accused's seniors. He feared that they might try to persuade the accused to opt for a summary trial on the grounds that it would be cheaper and quicker, and also that they might want to keep the matter "in house". The persuasion could take the form of superiors' making it clear that the accused's life could be very difficult in future, or suggesting indirectly that the accused's career prospects could be, shall we say, curtailed.
There was an extensive debate in the other place on 18 January, the report of which my hon. Friends will find in columns 1012-14 of Hansard. I shall not delay the House by quoting from it.
At present, there are no safeguards to prevent undue influence from being exerted on the accused. As the opportunities for courts martial increase, so does the potential for abuse of the system, but the Government seem to have done nothing to eliminate the possibility of such abuses. The Bill overlooks the realities of life in the services, just as it overlooks so many other things. Several times the Opposition have raised the spectre of "behind the barrack block" discipline. It happens now, it is wrong, and there is no doubt that the Bill will only increase the

likelihood of its happening. We hope that the amendment will introduce additional protection, and that the Minister will accept this simple but important measure.
Let me respond to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) by saying that we understand that the matter should not be in the hands of members of the chain of command. That would not comply with the European convention on human rights. We were told—indeed, my noble Friend was told in another place—that there would be access to lawyers independent of the chain of command. However, that in turn raises the issue of who the lawyers are to be.
Members of the Army legal service, for example, are not perceived by the forces to be truly independent. They are independent legally, but they are part of the chain of command. We must therefore fall back on independent civilian lawyers, but that is a problem, not least because the Ministry of Defence is very bad at paying them. Before Christmas, the Lord Chancellor's Department changed the rules, which inhibits the proper working of the process. There is also the practical problem of how to get civilian lawyers to members of the forces in such circumstances. The situation is fraught with difficulty. That is why we are asking the Government for an assurance about how the process can be made to work.

Dr. Godman: I will be brief because I hope to speak in the next debate, but I want to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that, if the amendment is put to a vote, I shall not support it.
I have just returned from Kosovo, where I spoke to officers and other soldiers. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has also been in Pristina and elsewhere. I think that those soldiers are doing a remarkably fine job, along with our RUC officers; but I am concerned about, say, the young soldier who is apprehended for some misdemeanour, and who might feel entirely alone and defenceless in a guardroom, surrounded by regimental police officers who are not always as sympathetic as military police officers. Will the Minister assure me that young soldiers and others who are caught up in such circumstances will have access to advice?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I confess to some surprise at the notion of "Be a carer: join the redcaps". Such a slogan would not be immediately recognised by many who have served in the armed forces as a reflection of their own experience.
There is a problem here, although I am not sure that the amendment is the way to deal with it. Someone who had opted for court martial could easily find himself or herself the subject of pressure. If the other provisions of Army discipline provided that such pressure constituted an offence that could itself be subject to disciplinary proceedings, that would afford a measure of protection. Perhaps the Minister will be able to illuminate the matter by reference to some such provision elsewhere, but I think that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has drawn attention to a possible problem, which might cause certain individuals not only embarrassment, but something rather worse.
I shall be interested to hear what solution the Minister has, if—in accordance with what might be described as the immaculate conception of the legislation so far—he refuses yet again to accept an amendment.

Dr. Moonie: It is difficult to discern the underlying purpose of the amendment. I accept that its intention is to provide additional safeguards, rather than imposing restrictions on an individual's right to seek advice—which it could equally be read as doing.
The point relating to the offence is legitimate, although we did not consider it when drafting the Bill. It would be dealt with more appropriately by the Committee that will consider the quinquennial review next year, as by that time we shall have had a chance to see how the new law is working in practice.

Mr. Campbell: I think the Minister is right about the potential effect of the amendment. It could be interpreted as prescribing a very narrow range of people from whom a person who opts for court martial would be entitled to seek advice. That would clearly be contrary to the intention of the amendment. There is a possible problem, but the amendment may not be the best way to deal with it.

Dr. Moonie: I agree. If the list included the sergeant-major and no one else, we would all have a bit of difficulty in accepting that.
If all the regulations purported to do was provide a list of persons who might be able to advise the accused, the amendment is surely unnecessary. An informative list of suitable advisers can be made readily available at any time without the need for legislation. All three service discipline Acts contain provisions allowing for rules to be made governing, inter alia, the withdrawal of an election for trial by court martial.
3 pm
The current system provides that an accused charged with an offence will be given a pamphlet outlining his rights. He will also be afforded the services of an accused's adviser of his choice, who is normally an officer or warrant officer. Thus, from the outset, the accused will be made fully familiar with his rights under the disciplinary process.
Under the present summary discipline system in the Army and Air Force, once the commanding officer finds that the charge has been proved, an accused may have up to 24 hours to decide whether to elect for trial by court martial, in accordance with provisions in Queen's Regulations. In the Royal Navy, before the evidence is heard by the commanding officer, the individual is given at least 24 hours to consider whether he wishes to exercise the option for trial by court martial, in cases where he has the right to elect.
I admire the intention behind the amendment but, having read and reflected on it, and in view of the other provisions that we have made, I think that it is unnecessary.

Mr. Key: The quinquennial Bill has at last appeared—the Christmas tree has been decked—so we await with interest the results of the assessment of how the new law is working in practice, as the Minister put it. I am glad that he has accepted that the intention was wholly constructive: to ensure that no undue pressure is put on people who might be persuaded to change their minds after their initial choice. Given that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 34, line 1, leave out clause 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 20, page 41, line 30, leave out—
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
and insert—
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
No. 8, in page 41, line 41, leave out—
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
and insert—
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
No. 9, in page 42, line 5, leave out—1
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
and insert—
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
No. 10, in page 42, line 34, leave out—
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
and insert—
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
No. 11, in page 42, line 43, leave out—
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
and insert—
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
No. 12, in page 43, line 5, leave out—
'no more severe than that originally awarded'
and insert—
'fair and just in all the circumstances'.

Mr. Key: During the Bill's passage through both Houses, the Opposition have maintained that it undermines the authority of commanding officers. Clause 12, whereby the maximum punishment that the court martial can award is limited to the maximum that the CO could have awarded if he had dealt with the case summarily, is damaging and clearly undermines the authority of officers and the discipline system in the forces.
The measure is doubly flawed—the provision is unnecessary to comply with the European convention on human rights. Lord Mayhew of Twysden made the position clear on Second Reading in the other place. He asked whether clause 12
goes quite beyond and against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Crown Courts can of course impose higher sentences than magistrates. That is not something required by the convention on human rights and is itself likely to encourage elections for trial by court martial rather than by commanding officers—which surely must be deleterious.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 680-1.]
The measure shows how the Government have got it wrong. They are not just gold plating and bending over backwards to comply with the convention, but going way beyond what is needed.
The Government have argued that, because they see the summary justice system as non-compliant in that respect, we cannot use a comparison between a magistrates court and the Crown court in the civilian field, but an accused has an opportunity to be tried in a compliant court—that is


to say, a court martial—which has a range of punishments available to it that is laid down in statute to match the seriousness of the charges being made.
The fact that an accused has an opportunity to have those charges heard in front of a commanding officer, but in a non-compliant system, whose powers of punishment are more circumscribed, is of benefit merely to the accused. He is able to choose to have a convention-compliant trial if he so wishes. As, in any event, he is being given the facility to appeal the commanding officer's decision, that is further proof against challenge on that part of the Bill under the convention, so our proposal to strike out clause 12 restores the position of common sense and adds consistency with the civil sector.
Under the provisions, when the accused can receive no greater punishment than the commanding officer can give, there is no disincentive to elect for court martial. A service man can insist on election for court martial for even the most minor offence. There is a danger that such cases may never be dealt with due to the backlog of more serious cases.
Both the Select Committee on Defence and several peers in another place were concerned that the new provisions might mean that, without the risk of incurring a more severe punishment, more personnel might elect for trial by court martial. The Select Committee was told that, on the basis of surveys that the Army had conducted of Army offenders who were currently guests at Colchester prison, as well as officers and regimental sergeant majors, it was likely that the possibility of a more severe punishment would remain a disincentive. The majority of personnel believed that it remained
quite high risk to go straight to a court-martial.
However, the Bill will mean that the possibility of a more severe punishment is removed. Therefore, the disincentive is being removed.
The Select Committee's witnesses believed that summary justice, administered by the commanding officer, would remain the preferred option of most offenders, but, in the case of personal animosity between a CO and an accused service man, the accused could elect for court martial to spite his CO and superiors.
As has been made clear before, the Bill is an invitation to the barrack-room lawyer. Yet again, we see that too much in the Bill is based on a perfect world model, with accused service men being of good and reasonable character and team players, but it is obvious that the Bill will in many cases apply to service men who have done wrong. For a host of reasons, they may not wish to co-operate or acquiesce. They may feel that there are good reasons for them to play the system. The Bill gives them plenty of opportunities to do so.
I know that only a tiny minority of people are subject to discipline anyway in the forces. Nevertheless, they can be a significant factor, making life difficult for everyone else.
The Select Committee shared our concern that the more protracted process of courts martial might lead to delays in justice being done and being seen to be done quickly, and that aggrieved colleagues of an accused person might feel tempted to take matters into their own hands.
For those reasons, we believe that the clause should be removed. It will undermine the status and authority of the commanding officer. It runs the real risk of abuse by the

rare dissatisfied and disaffected elements in the armed services, and could lead to unwelcome delays in the administration of justice.
In Committee, the Minister recognised that the Government were bending over backwards to comply with the convention. He said that he wanted it to be watertight. That is fair enough, but the Government have not made a sound case for the inclusion of the clause.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, even if a British court made a judgment that the Government had erred against the ECHR, all that would be needed would be a defence counsel instruction to courts martial that they should not impose a greater sentence than that available to the commanding officer.
Therefore, the foundations of the clause lie on uncertain ground. I invite the Minister to make a firm case for the clause. If he cannot, we shall have to see what to do about it, but it is a sensible suggestion. I look forward to the Minister saying why clause 12 should stand part of the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has said. It seems that the Government are driven by their interpretation of the European convention on human rights, but, from what he has said, it is not clear that the convention demands the clause. My impression is that it does not demand it and that the matter could be dealt with perfectly sensibly in the way that he has indicated.
The clause seems to have significant disadvantages, which my hon. Friend has set out well. To say that someone can demand to go to a higher court, or to a more substantial court—a superior court—where, normally, higher penalties would prevail, but that those higher penalties would not prevail should that person exercise that right, seems thoroughly illogical and almost entirely inconsistent with our magistrates court-Crown court parallel, which one would have expected to be followed.
I consequently support what my hon. Friend has said. I shall listen with great care to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendments Nos. 7 to 12 inclusive, which stand in my name.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to move the amendments. They have effectively been moved with the lead amendment; he just speaks to them.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was anxious to point out that the amendments in my name have a similar purpose to that of amendment No. 1
The amendments would ensure that the summary appeals court specifically has a power to impose a sentence that is
fair and just in all the circumstances,
rather than, as the Bill currently provides, a sentence that is
no more severe than that originally awarded.
I think that that is an important point. In November 1999, the Government estimated that of the approximately 7,000 cases heard annually by commanding officers, there are about 850 to 900 appeals—although they have


increased that guesstimate to about 1,500. The number of appeals will of course have a bearing on the number of service personnel and lawyers employed to deal with them. If the Government's estimates are correct, the system costs approximately £9 million annually. However, if the number of appeals should increase, the system's costs will increase accordingly.
In Committee, the Minister was very fair in stating clearly that the civilian court system, on appeal, provides an opportunity for the senior court to impose a heavier sentence than that imposed by the junior court or court of first instance.
Subsequently, the Minister tried to explain to us why he thought that, to be compliant with the European convention on human rights, it is necessary that the military system should contain three elements, the first of which is that the accused must be offered an alternative of trial by court martial. The second is that the court martial should not be able to impose a greater penalty than that which the commanding officer could have imposed initially. The third is that, on appeal, the summary appeal court should not impose a sentence greater than that imposed by the commanding officer.
I am seriously concerned that, if the appeal court cannot impose a sentence greater than that imposed by the commanding officer—if there is no right for the appeal court to increase a sentence—the number of appeals will be very substantially greater than that currently anticipated by the Government. What has an accused to lose if he discovers that his sentence cannot be increased on appeal?
It seems to be entirely sensible that, in this matter, the military courts should follow the same system used by the civilian courts. I defy the Minister to explain to us clearly where article 6 of the convention on human rights provides that it is not possible to allow an appeal court to impose a higher sentence. For those reasons, I support amendment No. 1.

Dr. Moonie: I tell the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that we are advised that the right of appeal will render us compatible with the convention only if the accused is not in jeopardy of a more severe sentence on appeal.
As much as I should like to satisfy the request of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for clarity in the law, I regret that that is not something that is at my disposal. If the law were a bit more clear generally, we would not need so many lawyers to explain it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Moonie: No, I do not intend to give way as there is no time. I am taking up time that we could spend on Third Reading.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is on this point.

Dr. Moonie: All right, I will give way as I referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful. I think that the Minister will appreciate that we are considering two different issues. The issue of whether on appeal from the

commanding officer a sentence could be increased is one thing, and a rule that it should not be increased is fully understandable and may well be consistent with the convention. However, that is a quite different issue from that of whether, when a court martial is requested or demanded in the first instance, the sentence should still be only that which a commanding officer could impose. It really is important that the Minister should tell the House his advice on that point.

Dr. Moonie: I shall be as clear and as brief as I can. My advice is that if the court to which a person elects his proceedings to be transferred is to be compliant, it must have no greater penalty than that of the court from which he elects to withdraw. That is the reason.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Moonie: No, I cannot give way again.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I ask the Minister to give way. It is very important.

Dr. Moonie: No; it is not important enough for me. I have given way once and that is quite enough. I am guided by convention, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should recognise that.
The change proposed in clause 12 is to ensure that an accused is not disadvantaged by electing for court martial trial. The rationale for that is to ensure that no one is dissuaded from exercising from the outset the right to be heard by a European court of human rights-compliant court solely because he or she is at risk of a more severe penalty. That is a fundamental point in the advice that we have received.
Article 6 of the convention provides the right to a fair trial, which, in convention terms, is not provided by a summary hearing. A summary hearing, for example, is not heard in public, and the defendant is not entitled to legal representation. Nevertheless, an accused may choose to accept such a hearing and decide to be dealt with summarily—as we believe that most accused still will, despite the Bill's provisions. If the accused does wish to exercise the right to a fair trial, it is wrong that, in doing so, he should run the risk of a greater penalty. Capping the sentencing power available to the court martial is the only possible way of securing article 6 rights for the individual.
I am sorry, but I cannot accept amendment No. 1.

Mr. Key: Undoubtedly the Minister's words will be heeded in interpreting the law when, in future, matters are considered by the courts—that is how these things work now. However, I regret that he has decided that he must fall back on the legal advice that he has been given without giving way to my right hon. and learned and distinguished Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who has shed such light on dark corners of the law over so many years in the House. However, that is the position that the Minister has adopted—he is clearly in a take it or leave it mood today.
As I said, we have to make a judgment on the matter and decide whether to press the amendment to a Division—although my right hon. and learned Friend says


that he thinks that the current position is thoroughly illogical and inconsistent, and I entirely agree with him in that analysis; my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has made a powerful case in speaking to his amendments; and the House has not been very well served in this debate. In view of the time, and the protected business that follows this debate, I must beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As I am mindful that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in our limited time, I shall be brief. The Bill has a simple purpose: to ensure that, in two key spheres—summary discipline and pre-trial custody—our procedures are compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is not a casual concern, but one based on court rulings and subsequent legal advice.
The Bill deals with that concern. We believe that it safeguards our procedures from the likelihood of successful challenge, although, as we have acknowledged, it is impossible for any Government to provide an absolute guarantee that procedures may not fall foul of a court ruling at some stage in the future. However, we believe that the Bill does what is necessary to preserve critical spheres of the system of discipline, and that it does so in a manner that is proportionate to the convention's requirements.
The Government are fully aware of the imperatives of discipline and of the distinctive features of service life—although the Opposition may seek to give the impression that they have a monopoly on understanding those matters. We are not prepared to trifle with service discipline, and the Bill demonstrates that fact. The Bill also demonstrates what we have had to do because of court rulings and subsequent legal advice. It is difficult to imagine that any Government exercising those proper responsibilities would or could have acted otherwise.
The Bill preserves the authority of the system of discipline in the armed forces. In doing so, it achieves the Government's and the services' objectives. That is a tribute to the excellent work of our Bill team and legal advisers. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Bill might command the support of the whole House. I commend it on that basis.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has completed his speech.

Mr. Key: It was revealing, last week, to see the newspapers reporting the warning given by the Home Secretary for public bodies not to "panic" over introduction of new laws guaranteeing human rights. When one hears the phrase "don't panic" in the context of the armed forces, one is reminded of the catch phrase of

the dithering Corporal Jones, in "Dad's Army". In almost every episode, he would cry, "Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring!"
Perhaps we could liken Defence Ministers to Corporal Jones, who was by trade a butcher, as they have certainly made enough choice cuts to the armed forces. Like Corporal Jones, they also seem to have been running around in a panic, by introducing this flawed and unnecessary Bill without thinking of its consequences.
In a report, on 30 March 1999, The Daily Telegraph quoted various people, including a member of the human rights task force, whom it said had
been combing through the whole range of public policy to identify where problems were likely to occur.
One member of the task force was quoted as saying:
It's a litigant's charter. The lawyers will make a fortune.
What's new? The story continued:
Ministers and officials from each Department have been summoned by the Task Force led by Mike O'Brien, the Home Office Minister, to assess their readiness for the legislation.
Has the Ministry of Defence been summoned before the task force? Was it before or after the Bill was drafted?

Mr. Spellar: No.

Mr. Key: The Ministry of Defence has been spared. How very interesting.
One of the characteristics of our debates has been the Government's steadfast reluctance to give any indication of the legal advice that they have received. I suspect that we have witnessed another shameful episode of the Government saying one thing and doing another. They have said that the Bill is necessary to protect the authority of commanding officers, but they have been kowtowing to the Home Office on human rights.
It has been a strange Bill to follow through the House. There has been a curious lack of Government amendments. The Government like to say that that is because of the quality of their drafting, but, with no disrespect to the Government's lawyers, I suspect that it is because they wanted to rush the Bill through in the shortest possible time. The 2 October deadline is fast approaching and all the stops must be pulled out.
Ministers have given commitments in both Houses to come up with a single Act to amalgamate the three service discipline Acts. That is a serious commitment, in view of the chequered history of the issue. Successive Governments have been seeking to achieve such amalgamation since 1991. There is no evidence that the Law Commission is in a position to provide parliamentary draftsmen to help in the work. Recent parliamentary questions have confirmed that. Despite the expressed good intentions of Ministers, there is no evidence that their aim can be achieved in a reasonable time scale. The latest ministerial estimate was that it would not be achieved in the next quinquennial Act, due next year, but in the one after. Give or take 10 years is a fairly safe time scale—after all, we have been trying for the past 10 years—but it is not good enough. We shall seek to return to that issue.
In most cases during the passage of the Bill, Ministers have just ignored what we have said. The Opposition are used to making arguments that are then voted down by the Government. The Government are often rightly


accused of high-handedness and arrogance. Ministers have not been able to justify their conclusions on the Bill and have gone into autopilot mode, parroting the briefing material.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has had to leave the Chamber, although I entirely understand why. I would prefer him to be sitting in front of me as I quote his words from Standing Committee, but I must draw the House's attention to an exchange on 2 March. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) had asked a question and been told that the Minister would respond later. My hon.
Friend said:
That is a trifle unsatisfactory. We have to decide now whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
My hon. Friend then asked whether the Committee could adjourn to allow the Under-Secretary to take advice. The Chairman rightly said:
It is a matter for the Under-Secretary how he chooses to respond and a matter for Committee how they vote.
The Minister then said:
Indeed it is, Mr. Malins. As my reasonable offer has been rejected, I shall not bother to enlighten the Committee at a later stage. The Bill is as it stands and I shall support it from start to finish.
My hon. Friend then rose to intervene, but the Under-Secretary carried on:
The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat or rise on a point of order. I am under no obligation to explain anything other than that which I choose to explain. The Bill is as it stands.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 2000; c. 75.]
I greatly regret that exchange. There are many other examples. In the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend asked the Minister for the Armed Forces:
Can you guarantee that…the new system of military justice that it brings in would be proof against ECHR judgments?
The Minister replied:
I could no more guarantee that than the Member for Mid-Sussex could have guaranteed it when it was introduced in the 1996 legislation.
That is fair enough, but we have been told time and again in Standing Committee that the Bill would gold plate against the ECHR. We do not know where this unsatisfactory Bill will lead us.
In the end, it is down to the forces. The Government have tried to make military law ECHR-compliant. I was delighted earlier this week when the Chief of the General Staff launched his excellent document, "The Values and Standards of the British Army". It was many years in the making. I congratulate him and all the staff at the adjutant-general's department. I draw the attention of the House to two sections of the document. The section on the core values of the Army, in paragraph 11 on page 7, says:
Soldiers volunteering for the British Army accept that, by putting the needs of the Service before their own, they will forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. But in return they can at all times expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as an individual, and to be rewarded by reasonable terms and conditions of service.
Paragraph 15 says:
Because discipline is so vital to success on operations, commanders must be able to enforce it when necessary. That requires clearly understood rules and a military legal system which can deal with offences such as absence, desertion or insubordination which are not found in civil law. And if it is to work in war, such a system must be in place in peace. for it cannot be turned on and

off at will. Discipline must therefore be rigorously but fairly upheld by all those in positions of authority, and self-discipline must be deeply rooted.
No doubt the Bill will reach the statute book shortly, in spite of all our argument. We feel that it will undermine the system on which British military success has depended for generations. We are mindful of the fact that, in the end, discipline is self-discipline. It is in the hands of commanding officers and of every member of Her Majesty's forces in seeking to live up to the ethos and standards of British military life, which have served this nation so well down the ages.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Defence and of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. Some of those who have contributed today have forgotten the basis on which the Bill was introduced. It is necessary for two reasons: to comply with the European convention on human rights and because the legislation introduced by the Conservatives in 1996 was clearly inadequate and, following the Hood case, was going to lead to problems and legal judgments against the Government. We have heard many complaints from the Conservatives today, but they have to recognise that their 1996 legislation is inadequate and has to be replaced.
The Select Committee drew attention to several issues, pointing out that the Committee's 1996 recommendations for a consolidated Act for the three services had not been acted on. The report says:
We regard the consolidation of Service law as an urgent matter and recommend that the MoD address this matter with more urgency than has been the case hitherto.
As a member of the Select Committee, I want to place on record the important need for the issue to be taken forward. That argument should be supported on both sides of the House. If consolidation is not proceeded with, the Select Committee will have to come back to the issue.
I congratulate the Government on submitting the Bill to Select Committee scrutiny before its consideration in Standing Committee. The Select Committee concluded its brief report by saying:
We hope that on future occasions the MoD will see the benefits of introducing legislation in draft form so that we can take up the opportunity to comment on proposals before they are formally introduced into Parliament as Bills.
That is an important step forward that should apply to all Government Departments. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important to ensure that we get legislation right. The fact that we were able to consider the Bill in a limited way before it went through the House was a step forward. It would help the modernisation of the House and give us more effective government if Select Committees conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of all legislation.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: A theme that has run through our proceedings has been that the Bill is a legal necessity that has been brought upon by the adoption in domestic law of the European convention on human rights. I shall put the matter rather differently and say that it is not simply a matter of legal necessity; it is a matter of desirability in a democratic society whose armed forces cannot be immune from the development of the rights of


citizens, and in particular of those rights as they are now codified in the convention. It seems, therefore, that it could be expected that all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would wish to subscribe to the objectives that are set out in the Bill. It appears, from what has been said by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Opposition spokesman, that the House will not divide on Third Reading. In a sense, that is matter for some congratulation.

Mr. Key: indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell: If the Opposition are proposing to divide the House, that is a matter of considerable regret.
I shall make three points on the justification for the Bill. First, in the post-cold war world, the armed forces have an evolving role. The structure of discipline within the armed services should reflect that. Secondly, the role of our volunteer and professional services is to defend democratic values. That is why they are deployed in difficult and dangerous places throughout the world as we conduct these proceedings. It is correct that we should ensure that the system of discipline that directs these deployments is one, so far as is practicable and compatible with the functions of the armed services, that represents the very democratic values that they are doing their best to defend.
Thirdly, the armed services should reflect what is best in our society. We should expect them to reflect the values that we regard as being important and fundamental. I do not accept the argument that the armed services are so special and so different that they should be dealt with in a way that ignores the rights conferred upon citizens by the European convention. That approach turns the armed services into a ghetto in one respect, and perhaps also disconnects them from the civilian society of which, under our system, they form part, but to which they are subordinate because responsibility for the direction of our military rests in this place, particularly on the Treasury Bench.
The Bill has desirable as well as necessary objectives. It affords a fresh look at a new system of discipline for the armed services. It reflects the values which all citizens, whether in uniform or not, are entitled to expect. If its Third Reading is pushed to a Division, that is why I shall be in the Government Lobby.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I shall explain why I disagree in part with what he says, though I agree in part. Yes, there are desirable aspects of the Bill, and it is right that our law should seek to comply with the European convention on human rights. However, there are three points which the Government would do well to listen to more carefully than sadly they appear to have done during the Bill's passage.
I was deeply disappointed with the responses of the Minister. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber because I do not like to criticise Members in their absence. However, I must make the point, and I shall make it good in relation to the three matters that I wish to take up.
I think it came out in our debate on clause 12 that we shall put in place a system of summary justice within the armed forces that can be sustained only on the basis that it is voluntary. We have all been brought up to believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, made the point clearly when reading from the relevant document that I believe was put out by the armed forces—that when an individual joins the armed forces he agrees to some extent, and I would not wish to push it too far, to forgo some of his civilian rights for the purposes of good order and military discipline. One of the things that he accepts is that he will be subject to the discipline of his commanding officer in relation to comparatively minor offences.
It is clear from the structure of the Bill that the individual will have to be asked whenever he is brought up on colonel's orders whether he will accept that summary discipline. The colonel—the Army—cannot say, "No, this is simply a matter of colonel's orders. You can appeal if you dislike the result, but in the first place you must go before the colonel." The individual has, in effect, to put aside his right to court martial. He has a right to go to court martial even for an offence that results in 24 hours in the guard room. That seems silly. That is why I sought to intervene on the Under-Secretary of State to get him to explain the situation more fully.
I think that there was a misunderstanding—I would not like to call it an abuse, but I think that that was the result—of our parliamentary procedures on the Minister's part. If a Bill has been sensibly discussed over six or seven days in Committee and then comes before the House on Report, when serious and sensible questions are asked, and the Minister does not attempt to answer them, he is falling short of what the House is entitled to expect.
Summary discipline has now become voluntary under the Bill. Of course, there will be a great deal of behind-the-scenes pressure to accept that voluntary discipline, but it would be much better if it were up front. I have great respect for Government lawyers—I was responsible for them for many years—but I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting that the European convention requires summary discipline to be voluntary. I shall be grateful if the Minister, or his officials, will write to draw my attention to any learned articles that support that point of view so we may reflect further upon it.
I move on to quasi-judicial confirmation of custody. If something untoward happens in an active service situation—I use those words advisedly—the individual can still be held in custody for only 48 hours, or a maximum of 96 with the confirmation of a judicial officer. After charge, he can be held in custody only if that is confirmed by a judicial officer.
I think that the House is perfectly happy with that parallel system in circumstances other than active service, and it is entirely practicable to achieve it. However, it seems nonsensical on active service. The Government have not made clear the extent to which there is flexibility in, to use the words that appear frequently in the Bill,
as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Much has been made of the use of video links and the impracticability of using them on the battlefield, which would seem to need little debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made the point that ships at sea maintain electronic silence. It is


absurd that they should be breaking that silence to obtain approval for continued custody in the rare but, if it occurs, probably important circumstances where custody has to be imposed.
That brings me back to the point that I made on Second Reading in the context of the European convention. It should be remembered that the convention allows derogation from its terms only in circumstances that amount to war or other public emergency threatening the safety of the nation. All the former Yugoslavia conflicts, including Bosnia and Kosovo, demonstrate that many if not most of modern-day conflicts do not fall into the category of war. Happily, they do not fall either into the category of emergencies that put the safety of the nation at risk, but they do put at risk the safety of members of the armed forces. Effective maintenance of discipline is therefore essential.
I hope that the Government, through our ambassadors and others, will see whether the European convention, which was incorporated into our law in 1999, can be brought up to date so that it is practical for the 21st century. At present it is not very practical. That is not entirely the Government's fault, as it was difficult to strike a balance on the decision to incorporate, but it is one of the significant disadvantages of that decision.
The Bill will pass to the statute book in due course, but I hope that the Government will take account of the points that I have raised. If my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are minded to divide the House, those matters are sufficiently important to justify their decision, and I shall be quite content to support that decision in the Lobbies.

Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be even briefer than usual. Former service chiefs have expressed doubt about the Bill, although that is not shared by present service chiefs. I do not know how reluctantly or enthusiastically they endorse the Bill, but nothing matters except the rights of our service men and women.
I am not convinced that those rights have been strengthened by the Bill. One amendment would have strengthened them by making legal aid available at the point of arrest rather than at the point of charge. Many soldiers are treated hideously, and the present Minister for the Armed Forces is the third to have to deal with the Stankovich case. In all my years as a soldier, as a journalist working alongside the Army and now as a Member of Parliament, I have never come across another case in which injustice was so gross or blatant—and the man involved was not just a British soldier, but a British hero.
I plead with the House: we must introduce a measure, perhaps in the next Bill on this subject, to protect our national heroes and not penalise them.

Mr. Blunt: It is a bitter irony that the House is about to approve a Bill, driven by the European convention on human rights, that will weaken the system of justice for our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
The first part of the Bill deals with custody rules. It is the one part of the Bill that is driven by a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. That judgment involved a man called Hood, the only soldier that I know

of to take his case to the European Court. He was complaining about the unfairness of the Army's rules of custody and the ability of commanding officers to remand people in custody. Hood had been absent without leave four times before his commanding officer arrested him, and judgment in his case took five years.
The Bill creates a massive administrative burden involving judicial officers, and so on. That burden is not the result of manifest injustice in the armed forces: it has been imposed simply to meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
The second part of the Bill changes the period in which a soldier may elect for court martial. That will make such a soldier's position worse. The Bill does not allow a commanding officer an opportunity to find a soldier not guilty before that soldier must decide to accept his award or go to court martial. The Bill will force a soldier to make that decision earlier, so removing the opportunity to be cleared by his commanding officer.
Commanding officers are not really aware of the detail of the Bill. Neither was I, until I served on the Select Committee, and took part in the debates in Standing Committee and on Second and Third Readings. The Bill did not seem very important. Commanding officers will find, however, that the administration of justice for armed forces personnel will be seriously undermined. The Bill will demand rules of evidence that non-commissioned officers—the first links in the chain of command in the execution of justice—will not be able to meet. How do the Government think that those NCOs will be able to maintain discipline in the sub-units that they administer now that they cannot use the summary discipline procedure?
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will divide the House on this matter. I used to be a regular soldier, and I have to say that the Bill does not advance the interests of armed forces personnel. Instead, it makes their position worse. I accept that the rules relating to custody in the first part of the Bill are driven by a European convention judgment, but the Government have offered no evidence that the rest of the Bill has been required by other judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.
It is time to do what we should have done in 1951, had we only had the prescience. We should make a reservation for our armed forces from the European convention on human rights and the European Court. In that way we might prevent what is a bitter and extraordinary irony—that this Bill will make the administration of justice for our soldiers, sailors and airmen worse rather than better.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 113.

Division No. 152]
[3.46 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ballard, Jackie


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barnes, Harry


Alexander, Douglas
Barron, Kevin


Allan, Richard
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Austin, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)






Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Berry, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Best, Harold
Follett, Barbara


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galloway, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Gapes, Mike


Brand, Dr Peter
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burnett, John
Godsiff, Roger


Burstow, Paul
Goggins, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cann, Jamie
Harvey, Nick


Caplin, Ivor
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Casale, Roger
Healey, John


Caton, Martin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cawsey, Ian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hinchliffe, David



Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cohen, Harry
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coleman, Iain
Hurst, Alan


Colman, Tony
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cotter, Brian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cranston, Ross
Jenkins, Brian


Crausby, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cummings, John



Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Denham, John
Kemp, Fraser


Dismore, Andrew
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Edwards, Huw
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Fearn, Ronnie
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Fisher, Mark
Linton, Martin





Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
 Salter, Martin


Lock, David
 Savidge, Malcolm


Love, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
 Sedgemore, Brian


McCabe, Steve
 Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
 Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonnell, John
 Shipley, Ms Debra


McGuire, Mrs Anne
 Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mclsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWalter, Tony



McWilliam, John
 Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
 Spellar, John


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Maxton, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Merron, Gillian
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moffatt, Laura



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morley, Elliot
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don


O'Neill, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Öpik, Lembit
Truswell, Paul


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pearson, Ian
Tyler, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David


Pollard, Kerry
White, Brian


Pond, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pound, Stephen



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wood, Mike


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Woolas, Phil


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rendel, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wyatt, Derek


Rooney, Terry



Roy, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruane, Chris
Mr. Clive Belts and


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.




NOES


Amess, David
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bercow, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Blunt, Crispin


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)






Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Butterfill, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Maginnis, Ken


Cran, James
Maples, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mates, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Flight, Howard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Forsythe, Clifford
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fox, Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Green, Damian
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Greenway, John
Spring, Richard


Grieve, Dominic
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Streeter, Gary


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Horam, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert


Key, Robert
Wardle, Charles


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wells, Bowen


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Leigh, Edward
Yeo, Tim


Lidington, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. John Randall and


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-


Luff, Peter
Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Opposition Day

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY-SECOND PART]

Patten Report

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has accepted the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Before I call the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I should make a short statement. Madam Speaker has had to impose a 10-minute rule on Back-Bench speeches between the conclusion of the opening speech and the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member who winds up on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party.

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; condemns the Government's decision to remove its Royal title; and calls for the postponement of the implementation of other controversial recommendations in the Patten Commission Report on Policing in Northern Ireland until the 'new dispensation' on which it was predicated has truly arrived.
Before I turn to the substance of the debate, may I express my condolences and those of my colleagues to the families of the two Royal Engineers who died in an accident at Lough Foyle. We do not know the details of how the tragedy occurred, but we extend our sympathies to the families.
On the Patten report and the position and title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it is ironic that the Government amendment almost quotes from the terms of reference given to the Patten commission under the Belfast agreement. The first sentence of the terms set out in the agreement requires the Patten commission to
bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements.
We would agree with those objectives, but the flawed and shoddy Patten report fails to meet those terms of reference.
Instead of producing proposals that would encourage widespread support for the police, the report will discourage such support. It has already discouraged support by its total lack of recognition of the service and sacrifice of police officers. On 29 October 1999, in a thoughtful interview in the Belfast News Letter, Monsignor Denis Faul commented on that point, saying:
An opportunity for unity was lost this year in the failure to honour and respect the 302 RUC men and women who were murdered and almost 9,000 who were severely injured defending the Catholic and Protestant parts of the community. Even the Patten Report itself inexplicably failed to pay a sufficient decent and detailed tribute to the 302 dead and the thousands wounded.
The report has also discouraged support for policing by ordering a change of the title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary without presenting any rational argument


for that or a shred of evidence in support of the change. By contrast, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs commented in a 1998 report that:
Until there is a change in the status of Northern Ireland, inevitably many of the symbols of government will be British. There is no clear reason to make a special case for the RUC by changing its name without changing the name of other organisations which are also either "Royal" or "British". The official symbols associated with the force are not central to the status of the RUC in the eyes of the community. They attract the loyalty of many in Northern Ireland. There is no good reason to change them.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took that view just two years ago, and the Government should hold it today.
In 1995, in a community attitude survey for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, Catholic respondents divided equally on the question of a name change. The name was not seen as a major reason for low Catholic recruitment. We all know that there are different reasons for that. After the Patten report, the authority commissioned a new survey to see whether that position had changed. It had not. Fewer than half—45 per cent.—of Catholic respondents thought that the Catholic community would give more support to a renamed police force. A similar number—41 per cent.—thought that a name change would make no difference at all to Catholics.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that if a mere change of name would increase support by 45 per cent. of the Catholic community, it would be worth doing?

Mr. Trimble: I was making the point that there was a near equal division within the Catholic community on the significance of a name change, even after the Patten report. I shall come later to Catholic support for the RUC, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested by the figures that I shall give.
The Police Authority survey also found that a significant proportion thought a name change would decrease Protestant support for the police. My conclusion is that the change would bring little gain, and appreciable loss.
The Patten report has further discouraged widespread support through its proposed changes to the badge of the RUC. Again, it offers no evidence or argument for discarding symbols that are in fact inclusive. There are three symbols—the Crown, the shamrock and the harp of Brian Born. A member of the Government—whom I shall not name—told me that he had seen the RUC badge only comparatively recently, and that he thought that anyone who set out to design a badge of an inclusive nature for the police force of Northern Ireland would find the existing badge ideal. 1 agree entirely with the good sense of that member of the Government, but I would never dream of outing him.
Patten discourages support for the new arrangements by its ban on the Union flag. Once again, it disregards the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which said, in 1998:
As Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the Union Flag is the appropriate flag to be flown over police stations.
Patten also discourages support by its insensitivity towards RUC widows and
disabled police officers. The report contains just a score of lines about widows and

disabled police officers. It recommends that additional resources be made available to help those people, which is welcome, but the scant recognition for them, added to the grievous insult of removal of the force's royal title and symbols, has added to their pain.
Patten also discourages support for the new arrangements by proposing that there should be discrimination against Protestants in the recruitment of regular and part-time police officers. That is a clear departure from the Belfast agreement, in which the Government undertook
as a particular priority to create a statutory obligation
on various public authorities
to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion.
That obligation was carried into law by the section 76 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but, within two years, Parliament is being asked to derogate from that priority by enabling what is called 50:50 recruitment of regular officers and a targeted recruitment of 1,000 new reservists only from Catholic nationalist areas, however those may be defined. In the report, Patten claimed that he would put human rights at the core of policing. Those measures make a mockery of that claim. In all the ways that I have mentioned, Patten fails to fulfil its terms of reference.
In a press release in September last year Mr. Patten, in presenting the report, said that one of the key objectives of the report was to:
take politics out of policing.
That is a nice little soundbite, but it does not stand up in the light of the report. Many people in Northern Ireland find it ironic that someone who says that he is taking politics out of policing proposes a police force that is to be dominated by politicians and district policing partnerships, again dominated by politicians—and constructed, particularly with the gerrymandering of Belfast, in such a way as to enable certain paramilitary-related politicians to exercise undue influence over policing. That is not taking politics out of policing. Not that I think that that objective is correct: in the right way, politics should be involved in policing; it is proper for elected politicians to be involved in police policy and the accountability of police officers.
Patten is trying to do something quite separate and he has got himself confused. He is trying to take the constitutional issue out of policing, as if it was still a live issue. He is trying to deal with the situation as if the state and institutions of Northern Ireland should be neutral as between the two competing national identities. The agreement itself would take the constitutional issue out of Northern Ireland politics and institutions if parties would accept and implement the agreement in its entirety. The commission failed to observe key constitutional aspects of the agreement.
On constitutional matters, the agreement went beyond a mere acceptance of the consent principle. The relevant section of the agreement is paragraph 1, which states that the parties
recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status.
The key word there is "legitimacy". The same paragraph states that the parties acknowledge that that choice
freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union.


Again, the emphasis is on legitimacy. The parties are recognising the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. Put simply, all the parties to the agreement, whether or not they will acknowledge it, are accepting British sovereignty in Northern Ireland. There cannot then be any objection to the normal and reasonable expression of that sovereignty.
The Belfast agreement did not create a neutral state or envisage only neutral symbols. There is only one sovereignty in Northern Ireland and there should be no unreasonable restriction on the exercise and display of that sovereignty. The agreement acknowledges that there should be sensitivity in the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, but there would be no need to acknowledge the need for sensitivity if we were dealing with a state that was neutral.
Patten seems to have assumed that there should be such neutrality. In doing so he was following an out-of-date agenda associated with one interpretation of the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 with its overtones of joint sovereignty. But the Anglo-Irish agreement has been replaced by the Belfast agreement with its clear line on sovereignty. I am sorry to see that some people still seem to operate within the pre-Belfast agreement mentality. I was particularly disappointed in an article by Sean Farren, a leading member of the SDLP, which seemed to indicate that that party has not yet fully absorbed the implication of the Belfast agreement provisions on sovereignty.
On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has somewhat greater awareness of this. I noticed in a speech that he made last week a reference to a need for a reasonable balance and:
a sensitive use of symbols, so that more than lip service is paid to the principle of consent.
Patten did not even pay lip service to that principle. Clearly, I agree with the Secretary of State that we need more than lip service to be paid.
There is also a striking contrast with the recently published report of the review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. Its recommendations with regard to the courts are in complete contrast to Patten's recommendations on the police. The review suggests that the title should remain the royal courts of justice, that the badge which is the royal coat of arms should be retained and that the Union flag should continue to be flown.
The police and the courts are part of the same system. It would be wrong to have such a completely different approach to symbols within the same system. There should be consistency and it is clear what that consistency should be. The Government have not yet responded to that review. I hope that they are not so determined to defend Patten's mistakes that they extend his mistaken approach to the courts system itself.
One of the interesting aspects of the review is its survey into community attitudes. The opening part of the review makes a brief reference to symbols, merely saying that the Crown symbols "did not feature prominently". The review reports that the courts achieved high confidence ratings from the public: 70 per cent. of those surveyed had confidence in the fairness of the system. Ratings for component parts of the system in some cases were higher: 77 per cent. had confidence in the judges, 75 per cent. in juries, 74 per cent. in the police and 72 per cent.

in lawyers—a finding that will come as a considerable surprise and as a great relief to many hon. Members. In each case when those overall figures are analysed in terms of religion, there is a spread between Catholics and Protestants of about 10 to 15 per cent, with Protestants having higher confidence levels.
The breakdown for confidence in the police is interesting: 85 per cent. of Protestants have confidence, whereas with Catholics the figure is 59 per cent. Patten's equivalent references to surveys of popular opinion are slightly different. The approval rating for the police is 81 per cent. for Protestants and 43 per cent. for Catholics. The surveys took place only one year apart. The contrast between the 59 and 43 per cent. ratings for Catholic approval of policing—the 59 per cent. showing in the later of the two surveys—should be followed up.
Interestingly, there is published in the Belfast Telegraph tonight an opinion survey in which 61 per cent. of Catholics indicate that they have confidence in the police. The suggestion that the Catholic community has a serious problem with the police needs to be looked at more closely. Yes, tonight's opinion poll indicates that 31 per cent. of Catholics say that they have no confidence in the police, and that figure is higher than one would want, like or expect in a normal society, but it is not so high as to justify provisions such as those in Patten.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Patten distinguishes clearly between those who have a generalised confidence in the police and those who have specific local confidence? Patten says that Catholics often have greater confidence in their local police than they do in the police taken as a whole. Patten has identified the components that the right hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely my next sentence. One must draw a distinction between the generalised opinion given and opinions given on the basis of knowledge of people in the locality and direct personal experience with them, and compare like with like. The figures that I gave were comparing like with like. As the hon. Gentleman said, Patten reported that when people were asked about their local police, the police were given a higher approval rating. There is an even higher approval rating from Catholics who had direct personal contact with the police—69 per cent.—although the approval rating from Protestants was a little lower at 77 per cent. Perhaps people were moving away from making a generalised political statement to one based on experience, and what matters is experience.
It is also worth noting that the reporting of crimes in Catholic areas is at the same level as in Protestant areas. In terms of what people do as opposed to what they say, in an abstract way there is a clear message coming across that there is a high level of confidence. Anyone taking a sensible approach to these matters should have focused on that.
The conclusion to be drawn is that although there are problems, they are exaggerated and exacerbated by the political attitudes that are struck by some. The politics that needs to be taken out of policing is the politics of agitation and hostile propagandising against the police. I fear that far too many nationalist politicians have engaged in that. If nationalist politicians adopted a more


responsible attitude, that would achieve much more than everything in Patten. Without such a responsible attitude, Patten is a waste of time which has caused needless hurt to many and serious harm to policing.
I shall not go into detail on the proposed changes to the structure and size of the police, because I consider such discussion to be premature. However, the Secretary of State knows of our concerns about downsizing, the full-time reserve, the command structure, recruitment, special branch and local control of policing. On the latter point, I am dismayed at the ideas in the criminal justice review about so-called restorative justice and the so-called community, safety and policing partnership. Both will offer too many opportunities for paramilitaries to supplant the police and legal systems. No responsible person should countenance such dangerous suggestions.
There is a simple reason for my belief that discussion of structural matters is premature. The provisions on policing in the agreement were predicated on change. The relevant section begins by stating that the participants believe that
the Agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing.
That phrase occurs in the Government's amendment. The participants to the agreement note that it offers
a unique opportunity to bring about a new dispensation.
The policing provisions in the report are predicated on that new dispensation. But has it arrived? At present, the answer is simply and clearly no. Should the changes be rushed through in advance of that new dispensation? Again, the answer is obviously no, especially as, because of the refusal of all the paramilitaries—particularly the republican movement—to respond even after everything that has been done for them, there is little confidence in the community that the new beginning, or the new dispensation, will ever happen.
Much of Patten is not controversial. The uncontroversial aspects are largely drawn from the RUC's fundamental review of policing, started in 1994. It contemplated three security situations. In the first, there was a high level of terrorist activity, with bombings, shootings, intimidation and public disorder. The review stated that the response to that should be a high level of policing, supported by the Army.
The second scenario was one of intimidation, so-called punishment beatings and racketeering, with terrorist organisations remaining fully armed. In that case, the fundamental review envisaged a high level of policing, but with the Army withdrawn.
In the third scenario, terrorist organisations were dismantled and community relations had improved. In that case, a different form of high-quality, effective policing was needed. Only in that scenario would the fundamental review have introduced significant downsizing and a change in policing strategies.
With the ceasefires and the agreement, we moved from scenario one to scenario two. With the refusal of the paramilitaries to disarm and disband, we have obviously not moved to the third scenario. If anything, with the increased activity of dissident republicans, we are in danger of slipping backwards.
It is wrong to press on with security-sensitive changes. In his January statement, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that changes would be made in some cases only

when the security situation permitted. We must ask him to hold back those changes and, indeed, the controversial aspects of Patten, until after the disarmament and disbandment of terrorist organisations that was envisaged by the agreement and on which the fundamental review was predicated.
There is an easy solution for the symbolic issues that have exercised us so much this evening. We should follow one of the general thrusts of the agreement, on which both Patten and the criminal justice review concur. We should devolve responsibility for the police and the courts to the Northern Ireland Assembly and let them settle it: who better to decide those matters than the people who will be affected by them.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; notes that the award was made by Her Majesty in recognition of the service and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which must never be forgotten; reiterates its commitment to maintaining an effective police service in Northern Ireland capable of protecting the public and maintaining law and order; and reaffirms the objective in the Good Friday Agreement of creating a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.'.
I shall come to the name of the RUC and symbolic matters later in my remarks. In the meantime, I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on devolution. I look forward to the time when responsibility for policing and criminal justice matters is properly devolved, as we envisaged under the legislation. That will, of course, mean an early reactivation of the Executive and the institutions in Northern Ireland. I look forward to agreement being reached on that as quickly as possible.
I welcome this opportunity to debate reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a whole—not simply of its name and its symbols, although I readily acknowledge their importance. The debate is not between those who are pro or anti the police, or between those who are for or against the RUC. All of us are for the most effective and representative police service that can be created in Northern Ireland.
During 30 years of conflict, the RUC has been both the bulwark against and one of the principal victims of a sustained and brutal terrorist campaign. That position has led—unfairly—to its being identified more with one side of the community than the other. That, of course, is exaggerated by some for political reasons—I readily acknowledge that—but it does not remove the essential truth that the RUC tends to be associated more with one side of the community.
Policing in Northern Ireland arouses great passions. I have heard—often at first hand—the resentment that some of the proposed changes to the RUC have sparked. I understand the pain that proposed changes to the name and symbols have caused—especially among the families, friends and colleagues of murdered RUC officers. The name, rightly, is a source of great pride to the RUC family. I respect that.
We all owe the RUC a deep debt of gratitude. We shall never forget the 302 officers who were killed and the thousands more who were injured. Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I whole-heartedly support the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty to the RUC. It is a richly deserved recognition of the courage and dedication of the RUC; I include regulars, reserves, full-time, part-time and, indeed, support staff. It is a fitting memorial to those who gave their lives.
In January, when I announced my decisions on reform of the RUC, I was mindful of that history and of the concerns that change provoked. Then, as today, I was clear on one point: the reforms are—emphatically—not an attack on the RUC. They are not about disbanding the RUC. Those who advocated that course lost the argument. The proposed changes do not result from the RUC's failure—quite the opposite.
The RUC has provided a first-class service to the people of Northern Ireland and it continues to do so. That has not changed. However, the world, and Northern Ireland, are changing dramatically, and for the better. We must prepare and equip the RUC to embrace that change for the future.
An opportunity has been offered to create an outstanding modern police service—to allow the police to develop in a way they themselves have wanted to do for years. They will be able to make the transition from an anti-terrorist security force—as they inevitably had to be—to a community-focused and community-based police service working in partnership with the whole community. The new peace in Northern Ireland gives us the opportunity to allow the RUC to do what they wanted and still want to do—I stress that point.
Indeed, many of the central planks of the Patten report—for example, on the size and structure of the police service, on police training, on civilianisation, on community partnership policing, on normalisation of policing, including the amalgamation of special branch and crime branch, the phasing out of the RUC reserve and other proposals that Patten has made—flow directly from the Chief Constable's own fundamental review conducted three years ago. As Les Rodgers, the chairman of the Police Federation, pointed out, Patten was
the adoption in the main of the Fundamental Review.
Even so, when I was appointed to this job a month after Patten delivered his report, I decided to re-examine all the commission's recommendations and to reassess them on their merits. I subjected each to the same test: did it contribute to our aim of securing a modern, effective police service for Northern Ireland capable of attracting widespread community support? In a number of cases, I found it necessary to modify or alter the way in which a recommendation was to be implemented.
I have decided, for example, that the new police oath should not be taken by serving officers, who have already been attested as constables. That would suggest that, in some sense, the RUC, was being disbanded. It is not; that view has been rejected. I also decided that the district policing partnerships should initially be purely consultative bodies and that there should be safeguards to exclude anyone convicted at any time of a terrorist offence from being appointed as an independent member of a district policing partnership. In other matters too, I have gone to every length to ensure the operational independence of the Chief Constable and his officers from political interference.
I am determined to advance these and other changes in a sensitive and balanced way. However, we cannot allow emotions to blind us to the pressing need for change—change that the RUC itself has already acknowledged is necessary and desirable.
The hard reality of policing in Northern Ireland and the reason policing was remitted to the Patten commission in the first place is this: although 80 per cent. of Protestants are content with policing, fewer than 50 per cent. of Catholics are satisfied, as reported by Patten; the annual community attitudes survey—leave aside what the Patten commission established—shows that although 70 per cent. of Protestants think that police treat the two communities equally, only 30 per cent. of Catholics agree. I am not endorsing that statement; I am not saying that it is true. However, we cannot dispute the perception that exists among the Catholic population.
In the same survey, three quarters of Catholics and 60 per cent. of Protestants hold the view that there are too few Catholics in the police service. The reason for that is that 88 per cent. of the police are from the Protestant side of the community. That is in spite of the great efforts made by the Chief Constable and by the police authority to achieve a more balanced service.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State must keep in mind the fact that, when Roman Catholics join the police, they often lose their right to go home. Many Roman Catholics in my constituency are members of the police, and they cannot go to their own homes; their homes are under threat. Sometimes their parents have to meet them outside Northern Ireland. Surely that is why we do not have the input into the present RUC that we did in the old days when about a third of the force were Roman Catholics.

Mr. Mandelson: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. 1 know that IRA intimidation—in the past, including murder—has been a significant factor in preventing Catholics from joining the RUC. Such intimidation is absolutely disgraceful, and it must stop.
I say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that intimidation is not the only factor. Peer pressure, lack of community support, lack of identification with the RUC, fear of loss of family contact and an expectation among Catholics of having to submerge their nationalist identity should they go into the RUC—I am not suggesting that they will; that is the fear and apprehension among Catholics—are factors and they have all played a part. It is those factors that we are addressing and trying to remedy in the changes that we advocate today.
Northern Ireland is a divided society and the issue of policing throws those divides into sharp relief. To be fully effective a police force must be representative of the community that it serves and it must also command widespread support across that community. That is why I was persuaded that serious and radical changes were needed to redress the extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the RUC. That included changing the name.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that, between 1918 and 1921, the Royal Irish Constabulary comprised 70 per cent. Catholic constables? However, exactly the same process of


demonisation, propaganda and murder—more than 400 officers were murdered—did not solve the problem. Does he not accept that the change of name, or even an increase in Catholic representation in the ranks of the RUC or the new police force, will not solve the problem?

Mr. Mandelson: I believe that the changes taken in the round will address the problem and, over time, they will bring about the change in perceptions and attitudes among Catholics and nationalists which is necessary if we are to promote and secure the applications, the recruitment and the different composition of the RUC that everyone agrees is necessary. Nobody disputes the need for that. Where there are divided opinions is over the type of measures—the form the measures will take—and how quickly they should be applied to redress the religious imbalance that exists.

Mr. Tom King: As the Secretary of State rightly said, the whole House would wish to see a police service in Northern Ireland that commanded the widest possible cross-community support. In his recommendations on the Patten report, he has put forward some pretty fundamental changes that will obviously cause concern. What confidence does he have that the leaders of the nationalists—and republican elements as well—will be prepared to endorse and support people joining a new police force under the structure that he has proposed?

Mr. Mandelson: I believe that my confidence matches my hopefulness that that endorsement and those calls will come from leaders of the nationalist community. I have been encouraged by what leaders of the nationalist community have said and, if one takes what they have said at face value, I believe that, if we faithfully implement what we have said we will do, that support and encouragement will be forthcoming. I certainly hope that it will be.

Mr. John Hume: In reply to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King),there is no doubt that we want a police service that has the loyalty of the entire community and membership from all sections of our community. As I have often said, the basis of law and order in our society is fundamentally agreement on how it is governed; where that is absent, the police, no matter who they are, will be seen as being on one side or the other. They are therefore victims of politicians' failure to reach the agreement that we have now reached, including the implementation of the Pattern report, will provide the basis for a police service that has the membership of all—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but this is an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Mandelson: It was a very welcome intervention, and an important one because the hon. Gentleman has remarked that if, in implementing the Good Friday agreement, we implement what the Patten commission has recommended, the police service will, in his opinion, command the loyalty of all sections of the community. That is a welcome and important statement, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it.

Mr. Frank Field: May not the House be missing the point when we say that of course we look for

support for the changes from nationalist and republican groups in Northern Ireland? Nationalist and republican positions are totally legitimate, but is not the real problem that a very small minority have guns, and they have an influence out of all proportion to their number? The changes might well have the overwhelming support of nationalist and republican opinion in Northern Ireland, but the crucial group with whom we have to deal are those with guns who terrorise.

Mr. Mandelson: My right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, but it is no more necessary or desirable to have our views about policing and the proposed changes dictated to us by those who hold guns than it is to have the future of our devolved and political institutions, and their establishment in Northern Ireland, dictated to us by those who hold guns. I do not want any blackmail on any decision or policy to be perpetrated by people who insist on carrying arms as members of paramilitary organisations.

Mr. Michael Howard: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I am afraid that I must press on, but I shall be glad to give way later in my remarks.

Mr. Howard: My intervention is on this point.

Mr. Mandelson: I defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and I am grateful. On the point about the name, is he aware that the police force that is singled out for most praise in the Patten report, and which operates in not entirely dissimilar circumstances to the RUC, is the Royal Canadian mounted police? Is he aware that the Canadian high commission has confirmed that there are no plans to change the name of the Royal Canadian mounted police?

Mr. Mandelson: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is rather dramatically missing the point. If the Royal Canadian mounted police were operating in a society as divided as that in Northern Ireland and the policing itself were as controversial and evoked such passion and anger as the policing in Northern Ireland, they would be addressing the nature, the form and even the name of the force, just as we are doing with the RUC.
That brings me to the issue of the name. The Patten report concluded that
the name of the RUC…had become politicised—one side of the community effectively claiming ownership of the name and that the use of those words…must inevitably go some way in inhibiting wholehearted participation in policing.
To be absolutely frank, my starting point was to challenge that view. I recognised the pain that changing the name would cause and questioned whether it was really necessary and indispensable in attracting a balance in recruits. After a lot of thought and genuine consideration, I concluded that it was necessary.
I concluded, however, that small but significant changes to Patten's recommendations were called for. For example, the new name—Police Service of Northern Ireland—has been modified and will be adopted only


when the first new recruits enter through the new recruitment procedures in autumn 2001. Nothing that we are doing is overhasty or accelerated. Logically, the new badge of the police service will be introduced at the same time, but I have not decided what the badge should be, and I am not convinced that it need be entirely free of association with both traditions.
I have listened carefully to the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I acknowledge that many Unionists and many in the police family vigorously oppose the change and I have experienced at first hand their continuing opposition. Equally, however, it is very clear to me from all that I have heard from nationalist political, church and community leaders that, in their opinion, a change in the name is essential if the changes to the police are to succeed in changing not only people's perceptions of the police, but their attitudes to volunteering and recruitment to the police service in the future.
That view is not confined to nationalists. Editorials in the Belfast Telegraph on 19 and 20 January at the time of the announcement of the Government's decision recognised that while the sacrifices of the RUC should be remembered in a new policing era,
sadly, there would have been little chance of progress towards a broadly acceptable force without some change in the name and symbols, which were a legacy of the past.
The Belfast Telegraph got it right.
The Belfast Newsletter said that Unionists
would do well to take their cue
from the police who would
take all the changes in its professional stride.
I want to make it absolutely clear: changing the name has nothing to do with the issue of sovereignty or Northern Ireland's constitutional status. Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the wish of a majority of its people. No matter how much smoke some people create, the name change is about effective and representative policing—nothing more and nothing else.
Some have accepted, reluctantly, that the change of name is necessary and have expressed the hope—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been conducted properly until now, and there is no point in hon. Members making seated interventions.

Mr. Mandelson: Some have accepted the necessity of the change, including some in the Unionist community and, indeed, some in the party of those hon. Gentlemen who are calling out to me. I know that because I have met members of the party who reluctantly accept that the change is necessary. They have also expressed the hope that it will be possible to find a way of commemorating the title and the service of the RUC in some form, not least in honour of those who have lost their lives. I strongly share that view, and I can announce that I have set work in train to identify appropriate ways of honouring the name of the RUC in perpetuity by associating it with suitable and agreed initiatives.
Ultimately, what the police do, how representative they are, and how they are trained and equipped matter more than what they are called. The Government are

determined to ensure that the police have the necessary resources and capabilities to protect the community and uphold law and order.
We must tackle the live, day-to-day issues: the all-too-frequent paramilitary attacks that inflict terrible suffering and mock the principles of fairness and justice; the arson attacks; and all the other crimes of violence that wreck lives, wreck homes and deny whole communities their basic right to live free of fear.
There are parts of Northern Ireland in which paramilitaries think not just that they are above the law but that they are the law. The paramilitaries' grip on such communities needs to be tackled and broken, but to achieve that, the police service must have the confidence of law-abiding people in such communities. The police service needs to be more representative of them if confidence is to be built up, if the police service is to command the confidence that it needs in all parts of the community, and if it is to do its job effectively and successfully and take on and defeat the paramilitaries' grip. That is our objective.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State slips his tongue across descriptions of certain parts of the community in Northern Ireland. He describes them at one moment as nationalists, at another as republican and at another as Catholics. I am not sure that those descriptions necessarily all represent the same interest or objectives. Is it one of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions to have sections of the police force who wish to bring Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom? Is that in his mind?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be asking whether there will be a separately constituted section of the new police service of those who are dedicated to persuading their fellow citizens to leave the United Kingdom. I must say that that would be an odd way of constituting a police service. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Chief Constable is responsible for the recruitment of members of the police service and were he to make such a proposal to me, not only would I be extremely surprised but I would have no reluctance in questioning and rejecting the proposal.
The motion also calls for the implementation of controversial recommendations to await a new dispensation. I want to take up what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has said about that, because he made some important points and I take them seriously. I ask the House to think for a moment about the right hon. Gentleman's argument and what he has said. The British and Irish Governments, and all the Northern Ireland political parties, have to play a part in creating a new social and political climate in Northern Ireland. Reform of the RUC is not a consequence or a by-product of the climate that we want to create in Northern Ireland. Reforming the police is crucial to creating that climate and building up the new dispensation that the Good Friday agreement foreshadowed and which all of us who support the agreement want to usher into Northern Ireland as a new era of inclusive government and unbreakable peace. I say to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I believe that reform of the police has an important contribution to make towards creating that climate and ushering in that era, which all of us want to see in Northern Ireland.
None the less, I can reassure the House that there will be no question of rushing forward with change in the absence of a stable security environment. From recent events, including the explosion today, it is clear that we still have some way to go before we have created that entirely stable security environment.
A number of recommendations depend absolutely on the Chief Constable's assessment of the level of threat—recommendations such as phasing out the full-time reserve; amalgamation of special branch and CID; progress towards an unarmed police service; and changes to police buildings and vehicles.
Those changes will be carried forward only on the Chief Constable's advice, and on the basis of his assessment of the security threat in Northern Ireland. That is what Patten said, what I have accepted, and what the Government's policy is—taking account of the security situation and, against that background, the capability of the police as an organisation to absorb the huge changes that are set out.
Some changes can occur quickly. The Chief Constable has begun the process, and we will see the start of down-sizing and the creation of new district command units this November. That is his choice and his decision. Other changes will take longer. For example, Patten envisages the composition of the service changing over a period of 10 years.
In conclusion, I want to say this about the RUC: in its planning and preparation for change, the RUC has shown the same sort of typical professionalism as it has shown throughout 30 years of dealing with terrorism. I have met those responsible in the RUC—the change management team and the assistant Chief Constable, who has an excellent team. I am thoroughly impressed by the conscientiousness of those responsible and by their dedication to the task of bringing about the change, some aspects of which they may not like, but all of which, as professionals, they will embrace, if that is the will of Parliament once the legislation is enacted. They deserve our gratitude and our unfailing support. They certainly have mine.
I want also to pay tribute to the role of the Army in supporting the police in the fight against terrorism. The Army, too, has shown enormous courage in helping the police to uphold law and order and in protecting all sides of the community in Northern Ireland from violence. It, too, has paid a very heavy price, with the loss of 655 soldiers since 1969. In that context, let me join the right hon. Member for Upper Bann in expressing my sympathy to the families and colleagues of the soldiers lost in the tragic accident on the River Foyle last night.
Those who care about the police must resist all temptation to project self-interested political arguments on to the RUC. [Interruption]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mandelson: Whether in support or condemnation, that does the police absolutely no service and it makes their job harder, as the chairman of the Police Federation in Northern Ireland reiterated this morning, when he asked for politicians and the political parties in Northern Ireland to debate all the changes, but not to seek to link those

changes and the future of the police in Northern Ireland to the interests of one section or one political party alone in Northern Ireland.
Therefore to Unionists I say: "You are not being asked to relinquish your pride in or your sense of community with the RUC. You are being asked to share it with others in the whole community in Northern Ireland."
To nationalists, I say: "You must meet Unionists halfway. We can create a service of which nationalists can feel a proper sense of ownership, but it is up to you to embrace it and to join the new police service when it is created."
Our success in achieving a new balance and a new composition will be the litmus test of the reforms. This is an ambitious programme of change. The RUC has risen positively to the challenge, and we must follow the example that it has set in Northern Ireland. We have a framework and the commitment to create a modern, effective police service, drawing support from and putting down roots in all parts of the community. That is the prize. Now we must grasp it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The House is grateful to the Ulster Unionist party which, by using its precious single Supply day to propose a motion on policing in Northern Ireland, has given us an opportunity to comment on what should be contained in the legislation that the Secretary of State will introduce shortly.
I want again to underline the Conservative Opposition's respect for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. During the past 30 years, the RUC has constituted the thin green line in the Province between the rule of law and anarchy. We owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude on the mainland, in the Province and in the Republic.
Members of the RUC have paid the most horrendous price: 302 officers have been murdered, more than 10,000 have been cruelly maimed or wounded while trying to protect innocent life. In the international context, the police force in Northern Ireland is regarded throughout the world as the best counter-terrorism force ever. Those who recently visited the Balkans, especially Kosovo, know of the excellent work that RUC officers are carrying out there under equally difficult circumstances.
The whole House was therefore delighted when Her Majesty chose to recognise the RUC by awarding it the George Cross. Never has an award been more deserved. Conservative Members fully understand why the Secretary of State will not be with us for Question Time next Wednesday. He will rightly be with Her Majesty in the Province for the exciting occasion of the awarding of the George Cross. We are delighted that that will happen.
I shall repeat the comments that I made when the Patten proposals were published in September. We believe that they offer an interesting and helpful basis for policing in the Province when there is no longer a terrorist threat. However, the terrorist threat remains. In the past 24 hours, a serious explosion has occurred at the Eglinton barracks. A couple of weeks ago, a car was intercepted on the road between Hillsborough and Lisburn, and 500 lb of home-made explosives were found. In the run-up to St. Patrick's day, those explosives would have been used in a dangerous and evil way. 1 hope that no hon. Member believes that there is no continuing terrorist threat from republican and so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Hopefully, it comes only from splinter groups.
We believe that it would be decidedly premature to introduce some of Patten's security-sensitive recommendations. There are 175 recommendations in all, the great majority of which are straightforward, sensible and necessary. Many were mirrored in the Chief Constable's earlier review and we believe that they should be implemented forthwith. We can get those out of the way immediately.
We have reservations about the proposed name change. Worse than that, I do not believe that we can support the Government when the legislation comes before the House. We see no need to change the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) were good enough to point out, this is an extremely sensitive issue, particularly for those who have lost loved ones serving in that force. Therefore, any change of name must not be taken lightly by the House.
The biggest reason that we are given for a name change is that that change would increase confidence in the nationalist-republican community. I rebut that by quoting the Police Authority survey, which was concluded only in October last year—no more than six months ago. It says that a name change
will cause major offence in the Protestant community but will not lead to significant improvements in support for the Police among Catholics.
I endorse that. In other words, a recommendation to scrap the name of the RUC would create considerable grief and pain in one community without achieving much consequent gain in the other. That has been further endorsed today by the survey in the Belfast Telegraph, which shows that 61 per cent. of the Catholic community not only have confidence in the police, but do not believe that there is any need to change the name. I hope that, at this late hour, the Secretary of State will think again. To give him advance notice, I must tell him that, if he does not, we shall seek to remove that provision from the legislation and will press the matter to a Division, both here and in the other place, until we can persuade him to do so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: One of the specious arguments in favour of changing the name is that people speak of the RUC as "our police force". Perhaps those who use that argument have forgotten that that is an Ulster form of expression. We speak about "our Government" in this place, although no one from either the Labour or the Conservative side stands for election there. Surely that expression acknowledges that the RUC is part of our society and that we are part of it.

Mr. MacKay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to refer to them as "our Government". On a more serious note, he and I agree, as does the Secretary of State, that the police force in Northern Ireland—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—is for everybody in Northern Ireland, with the possible exception of the men of violence in both communities who want to break up the process and are rightly scared of the RUC because of the success that it has had.
I want to discuss the security-sensitive measures. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State. He rightly identified most of them, but 1 put it to him that they should not be incorporated in the legislation at this

stage. Only when he, the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, believe that there is no longer a terrorist threat—in other words, when Belfast is the same as Bracknell—should they be considered by the House for implementation.

Mr. Mandelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should introduce two Bills? Is he suggesting that we should introduce a Bill to pave the way for half the changes, and a subsequent Bill that would be necessary for us to provide for the restructuring of the force and other matters—for instance, those relating to the Special Branch? Is he saying that none of those matters should be dealt with until the security situation changes, at which point we would introduce a further Bill? Is he really suggesting that?

Mr. MacKay: I am delighted that I have made myself so clear. I believe that, in the legislation that the Secretary of State will present to the House, we should implement only the Patten recommendations that are not security-sensitive. I would then leave the remaining recommendations until there is a lasting peace. The Secretary of State knows full well that, sadly, we are a long, long way from no longer facing a terrorist threat.
There is no doubt that there is still a terrorist threat. It would be extremely foolish for us to put on the statute book recommendations from Patten that are security-sensitive, would potentially harm the police force, and, more important, would lead to a loss of life here, in the Province and in the republic.

Mr. Mandelson: Let me put on record my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for changing the formulation of what he said in his earlier contribution, when he referred to delaying the implementation. Delaying the implementation is one thing; providing for changes in legislation is quite another. It is possible to provide for something in legislation without immediately implementing it. The implementation can wait for the security situation to permit it, and for the Chief Constable to give the appropriate advice, but I think that it would be very odd not to take the powers and not to make the provision at all.

Mr. MacKay: Obviously, we do not believe that there should be implementation until it is safe for that to happen. Equally, we do not want the recommendations to be implemented merely by affirmative order, by a nod and a wink from the Secretary of State, or by the imposition of political pressure on anyone else. They should be implemented in fresh legislation on the Floor of the House, with us, the Members of this House, making a final decision.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is not the pity of this the fact that the Government have not learned the lesson of the folly of releasing large numbers of terrorists into the community, which everyone with any common sense knows was a dreadful mistake, and the fact that they now insist on going the whole hog on the Patten proposals when, although everyone acknowledges that much in Patten is extremely good and should be implemented immediately, the name change is a change too far?

Mr. MacKay: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I shall return to the subject of


decommissioning and terrorist prisoner releases shortly; first, however, I want to regain the Secretary of State's attention, because he is anxious for me to make absolutely clear where we stand on security-sensitive legislation.
What we object to most is the setting up of new district policing partnership boards, which will include locally elected representatives. That means that Sinn Fein councillors and so-called loyalist councillors, with their clear links to the paramilitaries, will be able to sit on the boards—and, under legislation from this House, the area police commander will be legally obliged to give them security-sensitive information. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that that would be entirely inappropriate, and would put lives at risk.
The idea that any of those elected councillors can sit on any police board at any time while their paramilitary associates—with whom, according to the Prime Minister, they are inextricably linked—have failed to decommission one gun or one ounce of Semtex is outrageous. We would not in any circumstances wish to support the setting up of such boards, even by means of an arrangement that could be implemented later if the peace lasted. We would want fresh legislation. We would want the House to look very carefully to satisfy itself that that has happened.

Mr. Mandelson: I have already made it clear that they are not being set up as executive boards. I have already decided that they will be set up as consultative forums.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's other point about people from Sinn Fein, notably, being part of the forums, he must realise that, by then, it must be assumed—I certainly hope that he assumes it—that Sinn Fein will be part of the government of Northern Ireland, let alone the district partnerships. He should know from his knowledge of Northern Ireland that many of those partnership boards exist already in relation to a host of other policies and activities throughout Northern Ireland, almost all of which include representatives of Sinn Fein sitting down with representatives of other political parties. There is nothing new in all this.

Mr. MacKay: There is something entirely new about recommendations under Patten—which we are still not clear whether the Secretary of State will implement—actually saying that the area police commander, under statute, must give security-sensitive information to the police board, when those people sitting on the police board are inextricably linked, so do we have an absolute guarantee that the board has been scrapped for good?

Mr. Mandelson: I repeat: I have already announced my decision not to accept that aspect of the Patten commission's recommendations. They are not being set up as district executive boards. The district commanders will not have the relationship that the right hon. Gentleman has described to the district partnerships, which will be consultative forums that will not deal with security-sensitive matters and material.

Mr. MacKay: I think that we have to pursue the Secretary of State just a little further, so that we are absolutely clear. He has said that the boards are not going to be set up. They are not going to be set up for good—

is that right? There is not going to be something in the legislation that says that the boards can be implemented once certain criteria have been reached. That is what we want to know. Police boards are forgotten now—is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that there are many questions to which the right hon. Gentleman wants an answer, but he must give the House a speech. We cannot have a situation where the Secretary of State keeps intervening because there are others who wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr. MacKay: With the greatest respect, let me say that the Secretary of State has been making certain suggestions, which need to be clarified. I would like to have those clarified now. I want a guarantee from him that there will be no police boards in the legislation. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of Sate say that he has said that. Okay. We have now accepted that there will be no police boards and no mention of police boards in the legislation. I am delighted. I hope that I am right.

Mr. Stephen Day: Is the Secretary of State sure about that?

Mr. MacKay: I share the view of my hon. Friend: I am doubtful.
I move to the other security-sensitive areas that I wish the Secretary of State to exclude from the legislation.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I will in one moment. It is important that I put this on the record.
We believe that there should be no changes to special branch until there is no longer a terrorist threat and that that should not be in the legislation. We believe that the cutting of the strength of the force should not be in the legislation, but, instead, should be left, as it always has been, to the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, after judging the terrorist threat. That seems right and proper. We believe that there should be no tampering with the full-time reserve until, again, there is a lasting peace and no longer a terrorist threat. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

Mr. Maginnis: I do not want to delay the right hon. Gentleman, but he might reasonably inquire what body will replace the Police Authority for Northern Ireland because I think that he is being misled by the Secretary of State in terms of both the police board and district policing partnership boards.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State has told us that he would not implement the district policing partnership boards until such times as the criminal justice commission reported, but it has now recommended the implementation of those district policing partnership boards. Is he giving us a firm commitment, then, that he will not take the recommendations of the commission?

Mr. MacKay: Although I cannot answer for the Secretary of State, I should like briefly to observe that the


hon. Gentleman—who has more experience of security and police matters than any other hon. Member—and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is nodding, share the concerns felt by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends about the Secretary of State's comments. I also note that the hon. Gentleman will be replying to the debate for the Ulster Unionist party and can undoubtedly raise those issues with the Minister of State—who is nodding and listening very carefully to the debate. I am sure that the Minister will address those issues in full.
The only other matter that I wish to discuss is Catholic recruitment to the force. I entirely endorse almost everything that the Secretary of State said on that matter. I hope that no hon. Member is not deeply disappointed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary does not more evenly reflect the composition of the two communities. It is patently clear that it would be in the best interests of the Province if the force did so. Those aspects of the Patten report that encourage recruitment of young Catholic men and women to the force are to be commended.
It is, however, very important that we ask why there are so few of them in the force, despite—as the Secretary of State rightly acknowledged—the tremendous work that the Chief Constable and many of his officers have done to try to increase that recruitment. The simple truth is that those men and women have been intimidated within their own communities, not merely by the IRA and other republican terrorist groups, but by peer pressure and the community at large. I call upon the leaders of that community—the politicians, churchmen, local councillors and others who have influence—now to encourage their best men and women to come forward and join the police force. I believe that that is absolutely essential.
My colleagues and I shall be voting for the motion because we believe that the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his co-signatories to the motion are absolutely correct. We wish to see a successful, broadly based police force in Northern Ireland. Again, I call on the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to listen very carefully to this debate and the concerns.
I should much prefer for us not to have votes when we consider the legislation. However, we shall have votes if Ministers proceed with the name change without any compromise and if we are not satisfied with their sort-of assurances—which we found far from clear—on the security-sensitive recommendations that we believe should not be in the legislation.
We await the Bill's publication and First Reading with great interest. Meanwhile, we shall enthusiastically support today's motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I once again remind the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I should like to put this debate and the motion into the original context—a programme for peace and for ensuring the stability of that peace. The legislation will not be an isolated consequence of the Patten commission, but part of a very complex series of agreements made by the pro-agreement parties,

including the Ulster Unionist party, on how to achieve that peace, permanent stability and good government in Northern Ireland. It is part of a mosaic that included the recognition of the status of Northern Ireland, the equality agenda, the amendment of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, the police review, the criminal systems review and decommissioning. Those issues are all intertwined, interlinked and interdependent.
Through the Good Friday agreement, we are trying to resolve a 300-year conflict that has been so bitterly and tragically expressed in the past three decades in our society in Northern Ireland. Opposition Members regularly speak with apparent expertise on what the nationalist community thinks and wants. Not one of them lives in that community and very few of them even visit it when they come to Northern Ireland. Let us not pretend that Opposition Members know about the nationalist community of Northern Ireland and what it desires.
Whether we like it or not, there is a perception that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is the police force of one section of the community. One of the primary reasons for that perception is the antics of the Ulster Unionist party over many years. They must take part of the blame for that partisan attitude to the police service in Northern Ireland. Many statistics have been quoted at us today, but one of the most vital is the percentage of participation by the nationalist community in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There are many reasons for that, some of which have been articulated this afternoon, including intimidation and the conflict to which I have referred. However, the situation was similar even before 1969–70. That was not the result of intimidation or violence. The problem was the ethos pertaining at the time, which is carried through to this day.
The motion is flawed, because it calls for the postponement of the implementation of the Patten report
until the "new dispensation" on which it was predicated has truly arrived.
The new dispensation cannot be arrived at until the report is implemented, along with all the other issues. We are trying to create an environment in which the community fully respects, fully participates in, fully supports and fully endorses its Northern Ireland police service or the police service of Northern Ireland. The Government amendment catches that aspiration well. It talks of creating
a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.
Opposition Members should support that, not the motion. The motion is exclusive and is not part of the Good Friday agreement, which the Opposition say they will support and have supported.
Our attitude to the Patten commission and its recommendations is based on our experiences in our community. The Patten commission did not recommend everything that we asked for, but the report is a reasonable presentation that should have the support of the entire community. Law, order and justice have always been the kernel of the conflict in Ireland over many years. We are trying to resolve that conflict once and for all. We are here to engage not in party political point scoring, but in a genuine attempt to establish a police service of a kind that we have not had since the creation of the Northern Ireland state, whose status has now been recognised, subject to the will of the people. That is what we are about.
I regret that the centre of the attack, as it were, on the Patten commission is centred on the name and emblem change. That was one aspect of the commission's remit. Symbols are important, because they are symbolic of what they represent; but the Patten commission did what it was told to do. Why was it told to do that? It was because the terms of reference were directly translated from the Good Friday agreement. The second paragraph on page 23, annex 1, specifically requires the commission to address the problem of partisan symbols within the RUC, and that is what it has done.
It annoys me and the community from which I come that by supporting changing the name of the RUC we are somehow denigrating, trampling on or ignoring the sacrifices of RUC men and women and their families over the years. Are memories so fragile in the community that the continuance of a name is needed for sacrifices to be remembered? That is nonsensical. Two world wars were fought and men and women died. Their regiments were renamed or disbanded and nobody advanced the argument that the war dead had been dishonoured.
There is an attempt to create—

Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: have only 10 minutes and I am not giving way to anybody.
There is an attempt to make a political football of the problem that we have in the context of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the new Northern Ireland police service. We are striving for change and a new beginning, and the Patten commission is the way in which, by and large, we think that a change in security can be achieved.
Much was made by those on the Opposition Benches, particularly by the official Opposition, about holding everything in abeyance until the security situation is dealt with and clarified. They have missed the point entirely. It cannot be dealt with and violence cannot be finally eradicated until we have the new police service supported and endorsed.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: That is the real position.

Mr. McGrady: I am talking about practical politics on the ground. Until the entire community feels confident to embrace, join and be active in that service, it will not be reflected in that service. Peace and stability in Northern Ireland depend entirely on the commitment that is given to the service by both communities.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: I have said already that I am not giving way. There are only a few minutes left to me.
I ask the House, including the Opposition, despite what they have said, to support the endorsement of a new police service that is capable of being supported by the entire community in Northern Ireland. Otherwise, we have failed. We have failed with the Good Friday agreement and we have failed to map out the way that we are going forward. I could argue—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Let us remember that the debate is part of the on—going peace process, wherein the Patten report has always played an important role, as we have just heard. The group Friends of the Good Friday Agreement has arranged a conference for the weekend after next, where once again the Patten report will form a key part of the discussions. Yesterday, a student section of that body was launched by the National Union of Students executive member, Sophie Bolt. Again, some conversation was focused on the Patten report.
We need to remember that many people are watching to see what happens to the police force in Northern Ireland. They are judging the actions that are taken and the promises that are made to create an inclusive police force by the degree to which the Patten report is implemented.
The fundamental police role is to uphold law and order. We have heard a lot about that and, in general, the RUC has performed that role admirably in the most extreme conditions. Thanks to the sacrifices of RUC officers and their families, law and order generally has not broken down in large parts of the Northern Irish community. I believe that the George Cross is a fitting tribute for that sacrifice, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties can agree on that.
However, we cannot get away from the fact that a substantial section of the population has had a more strained relationship with the RUC, despite the committed hard work of the overwhelming majority of officers, regardless of their religious denomination. The reasons for mistrust vary, but some tensions are the direct result of the troubles and of matters that have been set out already. As a result, some communities have turned to paramilitaries to enforce some form of trumped-up justice. In some areas, the paramilitary beatings have almost become part of the process of keeping order, although—most evidently—they are not part of the process of law.
The Patten report offers a way to stop that ethos. The Good Friday agreement stated clearly that the participants in the agreement
believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.
That is the crucial point in this debate. We must all acknowledge what has been mentioned already—that the polls show that a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland do not regard the RUC as their police force. The Good Friday agreement was signed up to by almost everyone here today. The words that I quoted outline the challenge that the Patten commission sought to answer.
The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the report as a basis for progress. Changes in the police service had to take place, and they had to be by evolution rather than revolution. In that context, I believe that there can be no question of abandment. We must retain the vast range of talents and expertise in the RUC. We must also recognise—as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) did—that the RUC is a world authority on some aspects of policing, as a result of the difficult circumstances in which it has operated.
Many of the recommendations in the report are not controversial and I am sure that they will be agreed without much dissent. I was especially pleased at the


emphasis that it placed on human rights. That emphasis is key to the well-being of a democratic society, and to the healing process that has to take place in Northern Irish politics, where human rights have not always been respected.
For a police force, limiting a person's human rights limits the degree to which that person can trust the force. For example, arrest, stop-and-search operations and house searches can lead to very bad community relations if they are carried out in an unsympathetic way. It takes only a small amount of distrust to render effective policing virtually impossible. A police force can barely operate without community support unfortunately, that is what has happened in some parts of Northern Ireland.
We therefore especially welcome the inclusion of a commitment to uphold human rights in the police service oath. In themselves, those words will not solve the problem, but they make a lot of sense in terms of the direction in which we must go. The Patten reports suggests that the RUC can enhance its human rights practice further. We certainly welcome the report's recommendations, and hope that they will be implemented.
The Liberal Democrat submission emphasised the need for the police to work with the local community. Successful forces tend to be accessible to ordinary people. Given the security situation in Northern Ireland, that has not always been easy there, but a speedy implementation of the Patten report's proposals should help.
Even so, a start can be made now on building and developing trust. As always, there has been much discussion today about culture, ethos and—most important—symbols. All hon. Members, regardless of party, must recognise the sensitivities involved. I recently visited the Province with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). Our conversation with police representatives underlined the real worries that the proposed changes have caused. There is a real feeling that they are disrespectful to the many people who have suffered loss or injury during the many years that the RUC has been in the front line. These feelings must be taken seriously. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke with great authority and insight.
On balance, this is a matter not of principle but of judgment about how to balance the need for reform with the need to respect those sensitivities. Given that the police are there to serve not one or even two sections of the community but all the citizens of Northern Ireland, it is necessary to put that sense of ownership very high on the agenda for reform. Patten believes that the name is a real sticking point and that the historic symbolism, cherished by so many, also causes a proportion of nationalists and republicans to regard the RUC as someone else's police force or one connected with factions rather than individuals. It is a hard call. In my view, the changes must take account of the memory of those who have sacrificed so much, but it would be a far bigger tragedy if, after all that sacrifice, the RUC continued to be seen as a partisan force on account of its name.
This is not the time to discuss what the new name should be. As I have said in the past, I have concerns about the proposal: I still think that the name "Northern Ireland Police Department" would be better. However, it sounds as though we will have an extensive debate when

the legislation comes before the House, and I hope that we can then fully air the concerns that have been expressed to us.
The Liberal Democrats also welcome other aspects of the report, such as video recording in custody suites, an effective complaints procedure, formalisation of co- operation with the Garda, and new and extensive information technology and telecommunication systems for local police stations. Those proposals can all make a practical difference to the effectiveness of the force.
We are, however, concerned about sections of the report, primarily recommendation 121. In attempting to address the imbalance between the number of Protestants and Catholics in the police, it says:
An equal number of Protestants and Catholics should be drawn from the pool of qualified candidates.
We fully support the need for equalisation, but the imbalance will not be fixed by demanding that an equal number be recruited from qualified pool of candidates. That would simply tackle the symptoms and not the cause, because quotas ignore the fundamental issue. There are so few Catholics in the RUC, not because Catholics have been rejected by the RUC but because the RUC has lost the confidence of so many Catholics who might otherwise apply. There is little incentive to apply. Added to peer pressure, community pressure and, sometimes, paramilitary pressure, that makes it much more difficult for a Catholic to apply to be in the police.
I met Relatives for Justice this afternoon. The group represents people with grievances about the injury or death of members of their family that they allege are a result of state force activity. Having listened to them, I am sure that there is a case to answer. However we may deal with their claims, these people are genuinely aggrieved that their concerns have not been raised sufficiently in the past. In that context, it is not surprising that there continues to be an imbalance.
We need affirmative action. I think that community leaders such as politicians, Church leaders and teachers could actively promote applications to join the police. There are no quick fixes here, and we must not deceive ourselves by thinking that quotas will solve the problem. The goes for the recruitment of other unrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minorities.
The point about district councils and boards led to an interesting mini-Northern Ireland Question Time between the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). However, this did not clarify the situation, and I would be grateful if we could have an unequivocal explanation of what is going to happen. I was reassured that safeguards exist to prevent district councils from being infiltrated by paramilitary involvement, but we have to be careful, because I think the right hon. Member for Bracknell was right to raise the issue.
My final point is about downsizing. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that we cannot start downsizing when we do not know where we will end up. If there is downsizing, however, we must ensure that retirement packages and severance payments are very generous. That would not cost the taxpayer a lot, and it would be fair to those who have given so much.
Northern Ireland needs the implementation of the Patten report's proposals. The Minister of State has assured me several times that the Government will press


ahead with reform of the RUC, and I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State shares the timetable Today's motion begins with the George Cross, so I shall end on it. Wherever we stand on the details, all hon. Members should honour the supreme sacrifice made by so many. We are for ever in the debt of those who lost their lives

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Except for the reference to the award of the George Cross, I, as a humble Back Bencher, cannot accept the motion. I am pleased that we are holding the debate, however, although I regret that we do not have five or six hours in which to allow more hon. Members to participate.
As we approach the second anniversary of the Good Friday agreement—a few days hence—I should like to be told that the Government seek, in harmonious co-operation with the Irish Government, to do all in their power to implement all of the agreement. I am confident in the Government.
The Government's amendment rightly pays tribute to the courageous service and sacrifices of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, emphasising that that must never be forgotten. I pay my own tribute to those brave men and women.
The amendment also demonstrates, plainly and uncompromisingly—as the Secretary of State did in his speech—the Government's determination to press on with reform of policing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the early introduction of a Bill—the Police Reform (Northern Ireland) Bill would be my suggested title. I agree with the view voiced at the Ulster Unionist council meeting by Michael McGimpsey that change is not something to be frightened of as long as it is constructive change that enhances the ability of the police to carry out their duties. Mr. McGimpsey has said many other things, but I certainly support him in that.
I do not altogether agree with Mr. McGimpsey's criticism of the Patten report's "scant and fleeting" acknowledgement of the sacrifice made by RUC officers and their families. Some 302 officers have been killed, and almost 9,000 injured during the troubles. I hope that Mr. McGimpsey will not criticise me for my scant reference to the remarkable bravery and stoicism of those people, but I have only 10 minutes.
In Kosovo, recently I met constituents of some of the Northern Irish Members on the Opposition Benches. I met officers of the 60-strong Royal Ulster Constabulary contingent. They have no objection to my mentioning their names, and they are Superintendent John Middlemiss, Inspector Tim Hanley, Inspector John Adams and a remarkable young officer, Albert McWilliams of N division in Tyrone, who is based in a village that suffered a dreadful massacre. That village policeman is working with Canadian KFOR and doing a remarkable job.
I was so impressed by those officers that I wrote to their Chief Constable when I returned home, and I await his reply. I am happy to quote a letter of my own in the Chamber—I think that this is the first time that I have done so. I wrote:
We discussed the duties they had to perform in that conflict-ridden province and I came away deeply impressed by their professionalism. More importantly, I was told by their chief,

whom I believe Ronnie Flanagan had met,
that the sixty-strong RUC contingent was among his best group of international police officers.
Similar compliments were paid to your officers by senior UN officials, army officers and representatives of NGOs. The RUC can be justly proud of these fellow-officers.
Incidentally, the chief of the United Nations international police force said, "Do your best, Norman, to get some more RUC officers over here." I would not volunteer.
Within 36 hours of my return home from Kosovo I visited the RUC station in Musgrave street which covers the markets area. A couple of hon. Gentlemen know about my visit. I met Sergeant Jones and his colleagues who are remarkably positively establishing community policing, such as has been referred to. I need hardly say that that is a Nationalist area. Rightly, they have won a community policing award.
In the few minutes left to me, I had better say something about the Patten report. I have read the UUP's response to the Patten report and I reject the criticism that it is riddled with deep flaws. However, I share the concerns over the creation of district police partnership boards and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State's emphatic assurance this afternoon. I would not want to see such boards introduced into Strathclyde police. There should be consultation between all groups at local level with local police officers. No one can object to that development in a new police force.
Many of the recommendations are utterly non-controversial. I am not very happy with recommendation 154 on page 121 under the heading "Culture, Ethos and Symbols". Patten and his colleagues recommend:
The colour of the current police uniform should be retained.
I disagree. If we are to have comprehensive reform of all aspects of policing, why not, with the recommended design of a new, more practical uniform, substitute green for navy blue? As psychologists would say, the population stereotype and the colour we all recognise vis-a-vis police officers is navy blue. Let us switch colour.
This morning, after the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) met the women from the Relatives for Justice group, they told me that they were not at all happy with the Patten report but they were willing to accept it. They accept what Monsignor Raymond Murray, their convener, said in a letter to all hon. Members:
The Patten Report on Policing is seen as absolutely the most essential element of addressing the need for change. The confidence of our membership in the Good Friday Agreement was won by the possibility that policing would be properly and thoroughly addressed.
I agree with those sentiments, but that is a most formidable challenge.
Last night's editorial in the Belfast Telegraph began with the sentence:
In the seemingly endless search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland, it is clearly essential to know what core attitudes in the two communities are to be reconciled.
The last sentence of the editorial reads:
There is no escaping the unwelcome conclusion that changing the name and symbols of the RUC, and producing a police force sufficiently supported by a large majority, will be a crucial issue.


I agree. This Government and this House of Commons with the people and police officers of Northern Ireland have to be equal to that immense challenge. It would be much, much better if these issues could be resolved in the Northern Ireland Assembly based on genuine consultation with all communities in the Province. I should love to see the early reinstitution of the Assembly.
However, if the House of Commons has to introduce that legislation, let us do so constructively—based on genuine consultations with the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. I support the Patten recommendations and look forward to early legislation implementing some if not all of them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to those who have given their lives in the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland—especially members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their constabulary reserve and members of the Army.
After 22 months, the Belfast agreement was suspended, but it seems to be a partial suspension, because we are talking about something that is part of the agreement—as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) emphasised. If the agreement is suspended, why are we talking about parts of it? [Interruption.] I listened to the Secretary of State and I do not think he knows whether he is suspended or it is suspended. There is no clear message about which parts we can or cannot talk about and legislate for.
The hon. Member for South Down made it clear that nationalists want complete implementation of the agreement before they can give their full support to the suggestions on the police. That will be clear when we read Hansard. That represents what the nationalists are saying. Of course, IRA-Sinn Fein is not in agreement with the Patten report, as we hear from its spokesmen. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is happy about Patten. Everything in the SDLP's document on policing has been accepted by Patten—so the hon. Gentleman should be extremely pleased.
When the Patten commission was set up, many tributes were paid to it—by Unionists and nationalists. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), said:
The RUC have nothing to fear from the Patten inquiry.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said:
If we are going to have a sensible look at the RUC then I believe that Chris Patten's appointment is progress.
Some progress-as we see today. On 4 June 1998, the hon. Gentleman said that he was
very happy with the make up of the Patten commission. I think practically we could not have hoped for anything better.
When there was opposition in the Province, those who dared to say anything about the Patten commission were hammered down. However, when the report was issued, the Ulster Unionist council passed a resolution stating that it was
deeply flawed and objectionable to the greater number of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.

The resolution referred to the need to
bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements.
The council felt that the Patten commission was supposed to do that, but had not done what it was asked to do.
Mr. Patten himself does not keep silent on these issues. He said:
What on earth did these people think they were going to get when they signed up to the Belfast agreement?
I don't say this provocatively, but it really does seem to me that we were given a very clear agenda, and I'm surprised that those who gave us that agenda did not understand what the consequences would be.
The leader of the Unionist party said:
Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it.
I agree with him on that. He continued
but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.
I agree with that too. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has asked the Secretary of State:
Does he realise that despite his euphemistic language, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—is absolutely right to say that what has been announced today degrades, demeans and denigrates an honourable force … —[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, C. 852.}
Today we see the consequences of the commission. It is a serious matter that runs right to the heart of the debate. Those on the Front Benches have argued whether terrorists can have influence in the new set-up. The argument should have been not about the partnerships but about the main police board that is proposed. That is because the main board will have 10 members who will be appointed by the d'Hondt principle from those who are in the Executive.
The Secretary of State is working and sweating to get IRA-Sinn Fein back into the Executive. That is his purpose; he tells us that it must get back in because the Executive must be all inclusive. If the board is all inclusive, it will not be consultative—it will be the top body. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that he would not want such a fixture in his country; we do not want it in our country, either.
It is all right saying that if a person has been convicted he cannot serve on a partnership, but what about those people against whom the charges have been put in abeyance because of the agreement? We do not know whether they are guilty or not guilty, but there are many unsolved cases of murder, maiming, wounding and bombing. I do not think that anyone who has any link with paramilitaries or with destructive elements should be on the board. We will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland—they cannot be solved—in the way that has been suggested.
Of course, there is real feeling about the name. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down does not realise that. I have heard strong discussions in the House about holding on to the names of regiments in the British Army, so such issues do not concern Northern Ireland only. People feel very strongly about them. They feel that their friends or families who have served in the regiments are slighted if the names are changed. How much more do people feel about the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
I was in the House when a spokesman told us that, if we could get rid of the Ulster Special Constabulary, all would be well. I remember standing on my own in the House to defend the Ulster Special Constabulary. They got rid of it, but did that make any difference? I pay my tribute to the Ulster Special Constabulary, which not for the money-its members were paid a mere pittance—kept the IRA at bay for years. The historian of the IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, acknowledges that in his book on the history of the IRA.
We then came to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I heard people say in the House that, if we got rid of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the troubles would all be settled and all would be well. We were to get a new regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, but that is now to be seriously cut in size. Its headquarters are in Ballymena in my constituency and I got word the other day that a very big pruning will take place under proposals that have been made.
All those things happened, but there is no end to the problem. We must be prepared to deal with those who are prepared to take up arms and to kill, maim and bomb. Such people come from both religious sections of the community; there are terrorists and evil men in the Protestant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to be called because I want to place on the record—mercifully, briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the reasons why I cannot support the Government in the Division Lobby this evening. It would be grotesque for me to move on to that stage of the debate without underscoring the messages that the House is putting out this evening to those who served in the police force in Northern Ireland and who were murdered. Similarly, it would be grotesque not to underscore our thanks to them, their families and their children. Although that point may not take up most of our time this evening, I would not want anybody anywhere in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to think that because we do not keep stressing it, it is not as much a part of our thinking today as it is at other times in the parliamentary process when we are not debating Northern Ireland.
The House can also be careless about its own Members. I proudly represent an English constituency, and I do not want my contribution to go by without my drawing attention to the additional pressures faced by hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. Sometimes we think that our task is difficult, but it is nowhere near as difficult as theirs. I would not want us, in the casual and careless way in which we sometimes approach issues here, to fail to underscore how mindful we are of their personal bravery and commitment.
Similarly, I do not want the debate to go by without saying something about those on the Treasury Bench who look after Northern Ireland affairs. It is not always easy being a Minister, but the Northern Ireland brief is the most difficult one. The pressures, worries and uncertainties and

the horrors that happen when politics breaks down and people resort to violence to settle disputes are terrible. I was going to say that our Northern Ireland Ministers are on the front line; I hope that they are not, but they have to face risks that the rest of us do not have to face. That makes it even more difficult to disagree with them on an issue such as this.
I shall explain how the question of the Patten report breaks down for me. It is not that there are not many recommendations in the report about which we can all agree. I want to concentrate on those proposals which if they were implemented quickly would be seen as a victory by one side and a defeat by the other. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), better than anybody who has spoken so far-I do not knock anybody else because we are all making our own points-has encapsulated the political strategy that the House and the country have to face.
The House and the country are dividing, and I fear will continue to divide, along the following lines: there are those who believe that if further concessions are made, we can bring people who have been used to using methods of murder into the political process; there are, on the other hand, those who believe that that process has been tried and that for us to continue to engage them in the political process requires concessions from them. While we have not made much of it tonight, it is a debate, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was saying as the time limit came down on him, about what happens to guns and bombs and the people who use them.
In my short speech and in, sadly, not supporting the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, I wish to say that increasingly people will want to see more progress on the handing over and decommissioning of the methods and weapons of murder before further concessions are made. So while one of course looks for progress in implementing those parts of a settlement that neither side thinks is a victory or a defeat, there are proposals in the Patten report that one side will crow about and that will cause the other side even greater anguish.
We cannot realistically move further in the peace process that all of us want until we make more progress, or one might say at least some progress, on the decommissioning of arms. So, although this debate is not about the decommissioning of arms, it is about that for me. Although the debate is not about paying tribute to those people who have been murdered on both sides in Northern Ireland, it is about that for me. Although the debate is not about being mindful of the families on both sides of the divide who will never be able to recover from the murder that the terrorists on both sides have inflicted on Northern Ireland, I merely wish to put down a marker to my Government, whom on many fronts I am so proud to support, that while 1 may be expressing a minority view among Members, those views I believe are not a minority view among our supporters in the country.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party refers to the award of the George Cross. One of the main reasons, if not the reason, for the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty is the sacrifice of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Many officers have paid the ultimate price. In the past 30 years, 302 have been murdered and many more have been seriously injured and disabled.
Two of those 302 officers were members of my family circle. Constable Samuel Donaldson was murdered in 1970 on 12 August in Crossmaglen. He was the first officer to be blown up by the IRA in the conflict that has become known as the troubles. Another constable, Robert Miller, died with Samuel that day. Samuel's brother, Chief Inspector Alexander Donaldson was murdered by the IRA at Newry when it mortared the police station and killed nine police officers, two of them women.
So my family knows something of the sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Today, I salute their memory. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that the name of the RUC and our desire to retain that name was rather a tenuous link to our desire to mark the sacrifice, but I have to say to him that I do not believe that he is right. I must respectfully disagree with him.
I quote to the hon. Gentleman and the House the words of Rosemary Graham, who attended a public meeting in Portadown hosted by Chris Patten as he considered the issues relating to policing. Rosemary Graham, who is the widow of constable John Graham, murdered by the IRA in Lurgan, said to Mr. Patten:
The RUC must remain intact so that my husband John did not die in vain. My husband was a family man. He was not political, he was not sectarian, he was not a Catholic and he was not a Protestant. but a Christian. He was very fair, he treated people equally and I was proud to be his wife. I put the words Royal Ulster Constabulary on my husband's gravestone. That is what he died for, and I do not want to see that changed.
I leave the words of Rosemary Graham with the hon. Member for South Down. I hope that he will understand the depth of feeling that exists within Northern Ireland on this matter. Rosemary gave me her permission to use her words in the debate today, because she wants the House to understand what the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary" means to her and to many others in Northern Ireland.
We have heard much talk about the controversy surrounding the name, yet as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party, mentioned earlier in the debate, that is not borne out by the attitude surveys carried out in Northern Ireland. Just last evening, yet another of those surveys was published in the Belfast Telegraph. Of the people from the Roman Catholic tradition who were questioned, only 31 per cent. found the name of the RUC to be offensive; 61 per cent. were not offended by the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. One wonders why there is such a great necessity to scrap the proud name of the RUC. In his contribution today, the Secretary of State made much of the professionalism of the force. His comments have been echoed by other hon. Members on the Government side.
It is easy to talk about the professionalism of the RUC, and when that is set against the propaganda—particularly of the republican movement, which has sought to undermine the RUC—many people, especially those living in Great Britain, ask why there is a need for reform. But when people hear the propaganda set alongside the Government's desire to reform the RUC, they conclude that there must be something to the propaganda, and no longer hear the comments about professionalism.
One must conclude that many of the changes proposed in the Patten report are not about organisational aspects, although there are proposals that deal with organisation. There are proposed changes, particularly those that relate to symbols, that are motivated simply by a desire to appease a small but vocal minority in our community.
We hear about the need to recruit more Roman Catholics to the RUC. As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs who was a party to the report referred to by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I want to see more Roman Catholics serving in the RUC.
It is worth noting that since the IRA ceasefire, the number of applicants to the RUC from the Roman Catholic tradition has doubled. Does that not indicate some linkage between the violence and intimidation of the IRA, and the shortfall in recruits from the Roman Catholic community? I do not buy into the argument that the name and the symbols are a barrier to Roman Catholics joining the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
We hear also of bias by the RUC. Bias in favour of whom? If one visits the Maze prison in my constituency—if there are any prisoners left—one would observe as many loyalist prisoners for terrorist offences as republican prisoners. The RUC's conviction rate against loyalist paramilitarism is much higher than that against republican paramilitarism.
How can one say that the RUC has been biased? It has pursued terrorism from whichever quarter it has come. It has defended and protected the whole community, regardless of politics or creed. It is an insult to the RUC's professional integrity that the Government intend to pursue many changes that have nothing to do with professional policing but are politically motivated.
Sinn Fein-IRA has conducted a carefully orchestrated campaign against the RUC. Hon. Members should consider the disgraceful treatment of Monsignor Denis Faul and his colleagues who participated in a police liaison committee meeting in County Tyrone and the intimidatory tactics of the republican movement on that occasion. Hon. Members should consider the republican movement's bullying tactics against headmasters in schools when it seeks to prevent the RUC from teaching schoolchildren about road safety and the dangers of drugs. Hon. Members should consider the republican movement's intimidation of football teams that are drawn against the RUC team.
What does that tell us about the republican movement and its idea of justice and policing? Recently, we have seen much of the justice that it metes out. I could go through a catalogue of incidents that involve the republican movement and its idea of justice. It is the justice of the baseball bat, the bullet through the kneecap or, worse still, the justice of the kangaroo court: no judge, no jury and execution by a bullet through the back of the head. That is the republican movement's idea of justice, yet so much of the Patten report is designed to appease it. That is why so much of the Patten report is unacceptable to people in Northern Ireland.
Patten was given the task of securing a police service that could command widespread community support. He failed to achieve that. The Patten proposals do not have the support of many people in Northern Ireland. I therefore urge the Government to think again, to listen to the voice of the many in Northern Ireland, not to scrap the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and not to dishonour the proud memory of the men and women who gave their all to defend us all throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will draw back from implementing the many unacceptable aspects of the Patten report.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I should like to raise six points in the 10 minutes available. First, I want to consider the question that was implicit in many speeches: is there a problem with the RUC as it stands? Many statistics have been cited, and we could continue for a long time. However, I shall cite only two.
Fewer than 5 per cent. of Catholics have a lot of confidence in the police force. The level of Protestant confidence is seven times higher. Only 19 per cent. of working class Catholics believe that equal treatment was shown to both communities. The figure for working class Protestants was four times higher.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the fact that in Northern Ireland it is common to speak about "our police". The Patten report notes that that form of expression was heard from Protestant but not Catholic contributors. A problem therefore exists, and we are sticking our heads in the sand if we do not acknowledge that.
Secondly, will the Patten changes help to build Catholic, nationalist confidence in the police? We need look no further than the statistic that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) cited. He said that 45 per cent. of the Catholic community claimed that the Patten changes would increase their confidence. I appreciate his point that a further 41 per cent. said that it would neither increase nor decrease their confidence. However, if the confidence of half the Catholic population is increased, that constitutes a substantial improvement.

Mr. Trimble: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible that the 45 per cent. are contained in the 59 per cent. who in the same survey said that they found the police acceptable.

Dr. Palmer: I accept that point. However, we are seeking ways to increase acceptance and, under my first point, some people who feel that certain aspects are acceptable still lack confidence in the force.
Thirdly, would the changes reduce support for the police among the Protestant community, as some speakers have implied? Speaking as politicians, we have to say that people will blame us for the change, not the police. They will not support the police force less because we have decided, in the national interest, to change its name. The net effect will be that the Catholic side of the community will strengthen its support, but the Protestant side will not lose confidence in their police.
Fourthly, are there major substantive objections? It has been noticeable throughout the debate that criticism has focused overwhelmingly on the symbolic issues. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has stressed the need to implement the whole Good Friday agreement and I believe that the overwhelming majority of Members here would agree with that. However, his position has to take account of the fact that recently his party has twice become a substantial obstacle to that fulfilment. Because of the importance of decommissioning, we can, with some difficulty, understand why the party imposed an interim deadline for commencement. It is comprehensible, if unfortunate in effect, that that ultimatum was given. Making participation in the Executive dependent on the name of the police force is a position that most people in Britain find totally incomprehensible. Frankly, no simpler

proof could be given that the RUC is seen not only by nationalists, but by Unionists, as a Unionist police force. That problem needs to be addressed.
Fifthly, hon. Members may ask, "Does mainland British opinion matter? Why should it? Surely this is purely an internal matter for people in Northern Ireland. It is their police force and their security." Okay, there may be a day when Ulster is separate from Britain as an independent Province or part of Ireland or part of some larger European unit—who knows? However, as long as Ulster is part of this country, the opinion of the rest of the country matters. To those who claim loyalty to the Union, I say that it will survive only on the basis of mutual consent. I suggest to hon. Members that the opinion of people on this side of the Irish sea will continue to matter.
Finally, it is vital that we do not give any excuse to paramilitaries to withhold the commitment to peace on the ground that we have not played our part in the agreement. I understand that some hon. Members may not be entirely happy with every aspect of the report, but it was commissioned and it cannot be wished away. We must not flinch at implementing it—not as a concession to paramilitaries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested, but as part of our commitment to fairness in Northern Ireland and to peace in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is to be congratulated on the analytical and perceptive content of his contribution. My regret is that the same qualities were not brought to bear on the remit given to Mr. Patten and his colleagues when they set about the business of preparing the report. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the terms of reference of the Patten commission were to introduce a series of proposals designed to secure widespread support so that the police force it produced could be seen as an integral part of the community as a whole. The commission has signally failed to achieve that.
I do not believe that a single Member representing the pro-Union community endorses these reports. Indeed, a nationwide petition that is particularly relevant to the subject of today's debate—the name and insignia of the RUC—attracted 400,000 signatures, 300,000 from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine how, in such circumstances, the Government can conceivably say that these proposals are designed to bring about widespread support.
The vast majority of Unionists believe that the core of the Patten proposals are a number of political concessions and articles of appeasement to organised terror, wrapped up in technical and administrative reforms to which agreement is largely present, and which were the subject of the chief constable's on-going report from 1994. The changes in the name and insignia were clearly political, rather than policing, imperatives.
The reasons given for such changes have no real foundation in fact. Indeed, the opening paragraphs of the report, particularly those on page 13, suggest that the degree of overall support for the RUC was higher than the support afforded to any continental police force. Indeed, it was comparable with the support given in other parts of the United Kingdom, when we take into account the specific and peculiar difficulties faced by a police force in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann was, I think, right to emphasise the fact that the polls showed a much higher percentage of support among the Catholic community for local policing, in relation to the overall perception of the acceptability of the RUC in the Province. Therein, I believe, lies the real issue. The reality, as exhibited by the support for the local police, is that there was no real objection to the RUC. The perception was the product not of the reality but of enforced propaganda and intimidation—especially in urban areas—imposed by the control of the paramilitaries in ghetto areas in the urbanised regions of Northern Ireland.
Criticism of the RUC is largely directed at its role as an anti-terrorist or counter-terrorist organisation. I know of no great criticism of the RUC's discharge of its normal functions in dealing with rape, depravity involving children, theft, burglary and fraud: little valid criticism is made of the RUC in that context. The criticism relates to its direction of its activities towards the political terrorism of paramilitary organisations and their associated criminal gangsterism.
The same could be extrapolated in regard to criticism directed at the judiciary. Its discharge of its civil functions—from commerce to personal injury and domestic problems—attracts no criticism. Why, then, do its members suddenly become monsters of bias and discrimination when they exercise their judicial function in relation to terrorism?
I believe that the efforts of Government politically to appease and to placate terrorism have effectively increased lawlessness in Northern Ireland. They have broken down the moral infrastructure and civil obedience of a region of the United Kingdom that once had the best record in the UK for observation of the laws, and for lack of crime.
Let me perhaps put in context what it is to live in Northern Ireland under the policies of the Government. How can we expect ordinary people to respect law enforcement agencies or the judiciary, when a Government apply policies that enable, for example, the sniper gang in South Armagh, Carragher and McGinn, who were sentenced after due process to 490 years, to wave to relatives, including, incidentally, those of Lance Bombardier Restorick, and say, "We will be out in 15 months"? How can the murderers of the cross-community chums Allen and Trainor be given a life sentence, yet sneer and snigger at the mother of Damien Trainor because they will be out in a year?
I have personal experience of that because I received a letter bomb, as did Mr. Trimble and Mr. Donaldson—I should give their constituencies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should, indeed, give them.

Mr. McCartney: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In haste, I perhaps overlooked custom, but I beg their pardon: the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I all received a bomb. Those responsible were apprehended. After due process, they were convicted and given five years. They were out in six weeks. One of them, Gerry McQuoid, was one of those apprehended a month ago with a 500 lb bomb.
The policies applicable to such people, who are fighting turf wars over drugs and racketeering, are demoralising the police force, which sees those people, whom it has risked life and limb to secure, released back into society. If we destroy the morale of those in the force and take away their pride, if they feel that they are not valued in the community, ultimately that policy will be the harbinger of an even greater terror, and an obstruction and obstacle to the peace that we all desire.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State wound up his contribution very cleverly, by suggesting by inference that this is a party political issue, not an issue to do specifically with the men and women who serve as officers of the RUC. It is not a party political issue. It has been brought forward by my party perhaps only in so far as it is the only party in the House from Northern Ireland that has consistently supported the police through thick and thin, as they have carried out their difficult and dangerous duties over the past 30 years.
We are talking about the future of men and women: not some amorphous mass of people, but the individual men and women who will be called upon to serve in the RUC in years to come, just as tens of thousands have served in it from 1921 until today.
It is important that, if we expect those men and women, who are our police men and women now, and will be in future, to deliver the sort of service that they have delivered, and if we call on them to make the sort of sacrifice that they have made in years past, they must have confidence in the guardians of the democratic system that they are setting out to protect. They must have confidence in the Government, whichever party is in power. They must also understand that they will not be sold short in the face of violence and intimidation from sections of our society, from whichever tradition those small groups emerge.
The reality is that police are the victims of criticism simply because they have been in the front line. More than anyone else, they have had to carry the fight right to the terrorists' door and face them down the barrel of a rifle. They have had to put at risk their lives, and those of their comrades and families, to maintain some form of democracy in Northern Ireland, to stop us from falling into chaos.
In so doing, their greatest enemies have been those who would create chaos. Hence, we have heard story after story and words such as collusion being thrown around. However, if the force that receives more intelligence than could be imagined—intelligence about those who commit those acts of terrorism—had used that intelligence illegally or in concert with other illegal organisations, it would have brought about the slaughter of hundreds of people, particularly of those who now sit in democratic chambers and call themselves Sinn Fein, which we know is still inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. That would have been the outcome, but that did not happen.
It did not happen because of the men and women who have served in the RUC. It did not happen because of those men and women's diligence and honour in performing their duties. Compare that with the 2,200 people—including more than 300 police men and women—who were murdered by the IRA. Consider the


thousand, again including some police officers, who were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The fact is that 3,600 people have been killed in Northern Ireland, the majority of them by illegal organisations. If we had had anything but the most disciplined police service, the death toll would have been two, three or four times that. The Secretary of State is nodding.
I do not want to spend all day—I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not have all day—again addressing the issue of the name change, which is a serious matter. However, by changing the name of the RUC, we shall be disbanding the RUC.
Today, the Secretary of State again let the cat out of the bag. In this debate, he has talked constructively—in a manner that was meant to be kindly and considerate—about means of commemorating the RUC. One commemorates not something that is alive, but something that has disappeared. That would happen while the IRA retains not only its name, but its structure, constitution and desire to bring about change by the use of violence. If that happens, we shall be diminishing those men and women who have served, suffered and died. We shall also be presenting to those who succeed them a legacy that says, "You cannot trust the democratic system that you have been commissioned to defend."
In the short time left, I should deal with the proposed structural changes to the RUC. Many of them would be welcome and would make the RUC more efficient under more normal circumstances. Already, the Chief Constable has proposals to devolve more authority to commanders at local level. That takes time. The Secretary of State should make it clear, as he has not done so far, that, in restructuring for normal police duties, he will ensure that there are sufficient police men and women to prevent society from being put at risk. Society is at risk from a mafia ethos derived from 30 years of terrorism. The void of the present lower level of terrorism, which we all welcome, is being filled by evil men and organisations.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve will be retained, and strengthened if necessary, during the period of transition, if such a period can be undertaken. I hope that he will ensure that, while the core structure of the RUC is being dealt with, those men and women, who have played an important role, will be given some reassurance. The men and women of the RUC Reserve are the least assured about their future. Common sense suggests that the anxiety that I come across almost daily should be removed.
My party wants to ensure that the RUC is able to recruit properly so that it reflects the make-up of our society. That will not be done by removing a name or by any gesture made to the IRA—or to the republican movement, as it likes to call itself. There are families in my constituency who would not let their sons and daughters join the Garda Siochana, let alone the RUC, irrespective of its name. There will be no continuing tradition if we undermine the confidence of the police or diminish the level of entry to it. All those issues must be addressed.
It is a question not simply of gestures, but of the confidence of society when people go home, close their door and begin to consider where their protection of life, limb and property rests. It is not in some hall filled with

pseudo politicians that such true feelings are made. It is when people are talking privately that they tell us the name that they respect and the name that they will call upon when they are in trouble. Let us remember that these are men and women and not an amorphous bunch in green uniforms. They are men and women who run huge risks and who should be honoured by the House. The implications of the Patten report should be more carefully considered than they have been heretofore.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I have listened carefully to the debate, and there have been some extremely thoughtful contributions. Much of what has been said I can agree with: the Government, too, recognise the huge contribution of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We will never forget the sacrifices of the 302 officers who have been killed or the thousands who were injured.
As the Minister with direct departmental responsibility for policing in Northern Ireland, I have met many officers at all levels within the RUC. I have been impressed by the professionalism, commitment and bravery of serving officers as they carry out their duties in the most difficult of circumstances.
Two examples stand out. First, the role played by the RUC in protecting the nationalist community in and around Garvaghy road highlights all too graphically the balanced way in which it discharges its duties. It should not be forgotten that the last RUC officer to be killed was a Catholic, who was brutally murdered by so-called loyalist paramilitaries as he stood on duty at Drumcree in 1998.
The second example is the role played by RUC officers in a peacekeeping role in Kosovo, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). These officers have received plaudits from all quarters for the work that they are doing. They are held up as an example to the other police forces serving in Kosovo. Their professionalism and competencies are of the highest standard, and those who criticise the RUC should bear in mind these two examples and many others when they parade their prejudices against the RUC in their own communities in Northern Ireland and further afield. Those who do so show a lack of the tolerance and reconciliation that are the cornerstones of the Good Friday agreement.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government have welcomed in a fulsome way the award of the George Cross as a fitting tribute to the RUC and all that it has done over the past 30 years. That is recognised in the motion and in the Government's amendment.
In the time available, I shall respond to as many points as I can. First, I shall clear up a misunderstanding that still rests in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bracknell. He raised issues about policing boards and, in his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it was clear that he had not done his homework. He had misunderstood the pith of the debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about district policing partnerships when he was referring to boards. He then moved on to the debate about the policing board itself.
The Government will make provision in the new legislation to require each district council to create a district policing partnership. The legislation will provide


that these partnerships have a purely consultative role. They will have no executive or expenditure functions. The legislation will create also a new policing board to replace the Police Authority. The composition of the board will depend on whether we have a devolved Administration. Much flows from the political settlement, and different concepts will have to be put in place if a political settlement does not prevail.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister of State try to put my mind at rest by giving a guarantee that neither the board nor the consultative bodies will receive from the Chief Constable, if it is against his will, any security-sensitive information that will go to Sinn Fein or so-called loyalist councillors?

Mr. Ingram: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the relationship between the Chief Constable and the political Executive. It is part of the Chief Constable's operational responsibility to decide how to deal with those bodies and how his officers communicate with them. It would be a matter for the Chief Constable and his officers to decide how to communicate any information that they have in their possession. It would be wrong for me to restrict the Chief Constable' s operational independence in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the allegation that the RUC is being disbanded. I want to refute that suggestion. The RUC is not being disbanded, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made very clear when he opened the debate.
Those who suggested that the RUC should be disbanded lost the argument. The RUC is being renamed, as part of creating a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. I repeat that changing the name is essential if we are to make the RUC more representative of the community that it serves. That is what both the House and the RUC want to happen.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) intervened to say that the Canadian Government had no plans to change the name of the Royal Canadian mounted police. It is worth bearing in mind that policing in Canada has undergone change. I stand to be corrected on this matter, but I think that the name of the police force in Quebec was changed in 1968, and that its badge was changed in 1970. Those changes were made to take account of the cultural and traditional identities in that very divided community. Moreover, the force's literature is in French because of the divisions in that community.

Mr. Howard: I have checked that point, and it is true that the name of the force in Quebec is in French. However, it is French for Royal Canadian mounted police.

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I researched the internet so that I could respond to that point, but there are much more important matters to debate. [Interruption.] The Quebec force, the provincial force dealing with local matters, is called la Sûreté de Quebec. That is not the French version of the Royal Canadian mounted police. I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make sure that he is fully aware

of the situation. [Laughter.] I see that the comedians have taken over the Opposition Front Bench, but this is a very serious matter.
From consultations, statements and from face-to-face meetings, I know the strength of feelings of Unionists and police families on this matter. However, it is also clear from the contributions made by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) that there is another element to the debate that is shared by people in the Catholic community.
The survey in yesterday's evening edition of the Belfast Telegraph has already been referred to. It is open to many different interpretations, but I note that it reported that only one in eight Catholics cherished, or identified with, the name of the RUC, and that 87 per cent. of Catholics do not. That reinforces my belief that we need a service with which both sides of the community can identify.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question to be now put put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the orginal words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 264.

Division No. 153]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Green, Damian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Greenway, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Grieve, Dominic


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beggs, Roy
Hammond, Philip


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heald, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jenkin, Bernard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon



Butterfill, John
Key, Robert


Chope, Christopher
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clappison, James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Collins, Tim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cran, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lansley, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Leigh, Edward


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Evans, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Flight, Howard
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Dr Liam
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fraser, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maginnis, Ken


Garnier, Edward
Malins, Humfrey


Gibb, Nick
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Gray, James
Moss, Malcolm






Norman, Archie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Ottaway, Richard
 Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Thompson, William


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Prior, David
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Randall, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Ruffley, David
Walker, Cecil


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wardle, Charles


Shepherd, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spring, Richard
 Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Clifford Forsythe and


Syms, Robert
Rev. Martin Smyth.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cohen, Harry


Alexander, Douglas
Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Colman, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin, John
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
 Cotter, Brian


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
 Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Dawson, Hilton


Best, Harold
Dean, Mrs Janet


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dismore, Andrew


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Drown, Ms Julia


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ennis, Jeff


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fearn, Ronnie


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Flint, Caroline



Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Don (Bath)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Cawsey, Ian
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godsiff, Roger



Goggins, Paul


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grogan, John





Hain, Peter
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
 Morley, Elliot


Healey, John
Mountford, Kali


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
 Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hepburn, Stephen
 Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hesford, Stephen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hill, Keith
Olner, Bill


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Öpik, Lembit


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hope, Phil
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hopkins, Kelvin
 Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Hume, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
 Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
 Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pond, Chris


Illsley, Eric
 Pope, Greg


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Pound, Stephen


Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jenkins, Brian
 Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prosser, Gwyn


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
 Quinn, Lawrie



Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rogers, Allan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Roy, Frank


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Salter, Martin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Sarwar, Mohammad


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Sawford, Phil



Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kidney, David
Shipley, Ms Debra


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Singh, Marsha


King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green)
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lepper, David
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
 Spellar, John


Love, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCabe, Steve
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stinchcombe, Paul


McDonnell, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


McGrady, Eddie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mclsaac, Shona
Stringer, Graham


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


MacShane, Denis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWalter, Tony



McWilliam, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mallaber, Judy
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Timms, Stephen


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Todd, Mark


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Tricked, Jon


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Merron, Gillian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Miller, Andrew
Tynan, Bill






Walley, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Wareing, Robert N
Woolas, Phil


Watts, David
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; notes that the award was made by Her Majesty in recognition of the service and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which must never be forgotten; reiterates its commitment to maintaining an effective police service in Northern Ireland capable of protecting the public and maintaining law and order; and reaffirms the objective in the Good Friday Agreement of creating a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.

LIAISON COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Stuart Bell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

PETITION

Pathology Services (Devon)

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I have the privilege to present a petition that has been signed by 313 people from my constituency and the surrounding area in Devon. It has been organised by members of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and the Institute of Biomedical Science. The petition raises awareness of recruitment and retention problems in the local national health service pathology services and calls for a pay review body to be set up.
The petition states:
The petition of the members of staff of pathology laboratories in Devon hospitals, members of MSF and IBMS declares that pathology services make a vital contribution to patient care.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to recognise the current recruitment and retention problems for the service and the urgent need to establish a pay review body as an important part of addressing these problems.
And the petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Widows' Benefits

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record a matter that I regard as of concern and a national disgrace. There are no niceties or courtesies about this debate. It is born out of a sense of monumental injustice and some anger. Had Ministers been responsive prior to tonight, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) would not now be sitting on the Front Bench seeking to justify the unjustifiable. The subject before the House is the failure of the Department of Social Security to ensure delivery of widows' payment to those to whom it is justly due.
On 2 June 1999, Alan Keith Smith of Margate was working with highly flammable chemicals that caught fire. At the age of 24, he suffered horrific burns. He was admitted to Margate hospital and transferred by helicopter to a burns unit at Chelmsford in Essex. In order to satisfy car tax authorities and others, his 19-year-old wife Corrina asked for, and was given, a letter, confirming in three lines that Alan Smith was in intensive care and would remain in hospital for the foreseeable future.
On 18 June, he died of the injuries sustained in the industrial accident. On the same day, Corrina was required to identify Alan Smith's body in the Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford. She was required to identify his body for a second time on 23 June after his remains had been transferred to the Buckland hospital, Dover, where a post mortem was carried out.
Alan Smith's corpse was released by the Dover coroner, and he was buried on 8 July. The funeral was arranged by Messrs. Twyman and Holmes of Ramsgate. The Dover coroner provided the burial order necessary for the interment to take place. Corrina Smith borrowed £2,500 to bury her husband and to meet the out-of-pocket expenses generated by that tragic series of events.
The inquest into the death of Alan Smith was held in east Kent on 12 October 1999. The registrar in Chelmsford received a certificate from the Dover coroner, Richard Sturt, indicating that Alan had died of multiple organ failure, septicaemia and burns. The coroner's verdict was accidental death.
Mrs. Elfes, the Chelmsford registrar, issued a death certificate on 14 October 1999; I have a copy before me. She posted it to Corrina Smith with a covering letter. The letter states: "I have today"—14 October 1999—
registered the death of Alan Keith Smith. Please find enclosed Certificate of Registration of Death which should be completed on the reverse side and returned to the Department of Social Security, the leaflets enclosed may be of some assistance to you.
That was the first official document received by Corrina Smith since her husband's death.
Corrina Smith attends Thanet college. As she is under 45, she does not qualify for a widow's pension, so she claimed a £1,000 widow's payment. That would have


been of some modest help to her. In a pro forma note issued by the Benefits Agency at Nutwood house in Canterbury on 4 November 1999, she was told that
because more than three months had elapsed since the death of her husband
she would receive no money.
Corrina Smith appealed against that decision and appeared before a tribunal. She was told again:
Corrina Smith is not entitled to a Widow's Payment. This is because the claim was made on 26th October 1999 in respect of a death which occurred on 18th June 1999 and there is no entitlement to a widow's payment in respect of a death occurring more than 3 months before the date of the claim.
Let us be clear about the matter. Corrina Smith received from the Essex registrar a notification of death and a death certificate dated 14 October 1999. Notwithstanding the trauma of the coroner's inquest and the distress that she had suffered, her claim was lodged within a fortnight of the receipt of those documents.
Corrina Smith came to see me, her Member of Parliament, at my constituency advice surgery in Birchington on Friday 26 November 1999. All the facts of the case were made known by me to the chief executive of the Appeals Service in a letter dated 29 November. In that letter, I said:
The refusal of Widow's payment is, frankly, adding appalling insult to injury. I am quite astonished that under such circumstances the claim should have been rejected at all and would urge that this be processed as a matter of urgency. While writing I have to say that I find the form sent to her by the Department of Social Security about as insensitive as any Government Document that I have ever seen. Because of my strength of feeling on this subject I am copying this letter to the Secretary of State.
That copy was sent to the Secretary of State on the same day.
On 23 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), responded to my letters to the Secretary of State, saying:
On 4th August 1997 Social Security Regulations were introduced that only allow backdating of claims to a maximum of 3 months.
I should here point out that those regulations were laid under the previous Administration, following consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and were, as the Under-Secretary acknowledged, designed to
reduce the complexity of the system.
It is abundantly clear that they have also had unintended consequences.
The Under-Secretary repeated the assertion:
As the claim was made outside the three month limit a WP could not be paid.
He added that he
could appreciate that the time immediately after the death of a spouse will be traumatic and claiming may not be the main priority … However, the Benefits Agency does all that it can through its information providing services to ensure that people are aware of the benefits to which they are entitled.
This Minister was
sorry that you were unhappy with the standard notification of the decision advising that the Widows Payment is not payable.
Unhappy! That is one of the most callous, uncaring and thoughtless documents that it has been my misfortune to witness in 16 years in the House of Commons.
Given that a death certificate and the accompanying letter of advice were not sent to Mrs. Smith until after the inquest, is this young widow supposed to have second sight? Her husband had died a horrific death under the most appalling circumstances and the man who signed that letter dares to say that
claiming benefit may not be a main priority.
Without the necessary documentation and information, it was not even possible for her to claim.
The Department of Social Security's "Decision Makers Guide"—which is not public reading-refers to a situation in which there has been a delay in the issue of a death certificate, but says only:
If there has been a delay in the issue of a statutory certificate, for example if inquest proceedings are adjourned, but there is clear evidence of death such as press notices, police statements etc., and no doubt as to identity, the Secretary of State may accept such evidence.
How is a member of the general public supposed to gain access, at a time of distress or trauma, to this arcane information?
In his same letter, the Under-Secretary suggests:
Where a post mortem is required and there is a delay in post mortem procedures an individual can be given an interim death certificate immediately by the Coroner's Office. This would omit the cause of death but be sufficient for benefit purposes.
An individual can be given an interim death certificate, but there is no requirement to do so. Mrs. Smith assures me that she was handed no such document and I now understand that, in any event, where such a document is provided, no guidance note or letter of the kind offered by the registrar accompanies the document.
On 29 February, I wrote to the Under-Secretary suggesting that he examined the rules and the legislation in the light of this case. That letter was passed to the Appeals Service. I next wrote personally to the Secretary of State, on 10 March this year. In that letter I said:
The mere fact that a Coroner's inquest is necessary would suggest that circumstances are less than normal. A Death Certificate or even a notification of death is not issued until a later date … If regulations are to be changed at all then they should, most surely, set the clock running from the point at which notification of death is issued, rather than the actual date of death, as it is only at this point that the bereaved is given the letter of instruction to complete the document and send it to the nearest Social Security Office …
I would urge you both to have this case specifically reconsidered and also to reconsider the manner in which the regulations apply so that others may not find themselves in a similar position …
That letter to the Secretary of State did not receive a response of any kind until this week.
I did, however, eventually receive another letter dated 8 March, from another Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey, who also understands
that the time immediately after the death of a spouse will be traumatic and claiming benefit may not be a main priority …
which would seem to indicate only that both Ministers are worked by the same civil servants pulling the same strings and using the same word processors.
The Minister pulled out of her red box more jargon about
seeking to heighten people's awareness of rights …
Iam told:
Steps have already been taken to encourage widows to make claims within the time limits …
and that the
Benefits Agency have recently amended the form which is issued on registration of death to make it clear that it must be sent to them quickly to avoid loss of benefit …
That takes us back to precisely where we started because Corrina Smith was not sent
the form which is issued on registration of death …
until the three-month limit imposed by the Government had expired.
The chief executive of the Appeals Service, Neil Ward, can only write on 20 March:
The tribunal has no discretion in matters such as these and the Chairman has no alternative but to apply the law …
For the record, this is not law at all; it is regulation imposed by the Secretary of State.
On 28 March, threatened with referral to the European Court of Human Rights and this Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary finally replied to my letter to the Secretary of State. All she could offer was the observation:
An appellant who remains dissatisfied with the tribunal has the right to apply for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner … but only on a point of law …
I am left with the inevitable conclusion that those charged with the political administration of the Department that is supposed most to provide for some of the most vulnerable people in this country simply do not care. From the Secretary of State to his junior Ministers, this case has received nothing but platitudes and bureaucratic self-justification.
Let me summarise: we are talking about a young man who died in a fire, a young woman who had to borrow money to bury her husband, a coroner's inquest held months afterwards and a notification issued only after that. No information of any kind appears to have been provided to Corrina Smith which might have enabled her to make her pitiful claim within the time limit, and the system and regulation introduced by Government is being used to deny her the £1,000 to which natural justice says she is entitled. Her main concern now is to see this pernicious regulation changed so that others are not, at their most vulnerable, penalised as she has been.
Not once has any Minister, with this full and awful story at their fingertips, acknowledged the nonsense of this system and undertaken to change it so that others do not suffer as Corrina Smith has done. Perhaps the Minister can give that undertaking tonight, so that Corrina's misery will not have been in vain.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), wrote to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 23 February and asked that his condolences be conveyed to Mrs. Smith over the death

of her husband, a point in the letter that the hon. Gentleman chose not to quote. I should be grateful if he would also convey my condolences to Mrs. Smith.
The hon. Gentleman has written a number of letters on this matter and I will respond to the points that he raised tonight and those in his latest letter dated 28 March. If there are any other points at issue which are not covered, I shall of course write to him again.
Mrs. Smith's husband tragically died in June of last year. She subsequently claimed widow's benefit. She is not entitled to widow's pension because she is aged less than 45 years and there is no entitlement to widowed mother's allowance because she does not have dependent children. As the hon. Member for North Thanet acknowledged, there is no issue in that respect.
I want to deal with the issue of the widow's payment. It is a tax-free lump sum payment of £1,000 paid to widows who are under state pension age, or whose late husband was not in receipt of retirement pension. Entitlement is based on the late husband's national insurance contribution record. Widow's payment is intended to provide immediate support to enable a widow to adjust to her changed financial circumstances and to help her deal with unexpected costs immediately following bereavement.
There have always been time limits for claiming widows' benefit. It has always been recognised that a reasonable period ought to be allowed in which a person can make her claim, and she should not be penalised for a short period of delay. The current rule, again as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is three months. Unfortunately, Mrs. Smith's claim for widow's payment was out of time by some six weeks and was therefore disallowed. The nub of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that it should be possible to extend the three months time limit if there are good reasons for doing so. There is no disagreement over the fact that Mrs. Smith's claim fell outside the time limit. The problem relates to the fact that the time limit is absolute.
The history of the widow's payment is simple. It was introduced in 1988 by the previous Administration to replace a benefit known as widow's allowance. The widow's allowance had been a weekly benefit, but the widow's payment was a one-off payment of £1,000. It was never up-rated. Hon. Members may be aware that we are about to replace it with a bereavement payment, which we plan to introduce in April 2001. Bereavement payment will be a tax-free lump sum of £2,000 and will be available equally to men and women. Entitlement conditions will be the same as for widow's payment.
At the time—widow's payment was introduced in 1988—an absolute time limit of 12 months existed for the purposes of making a claim. The back-dating was automatic. There was no need to show good cause for a delay in making a claim. Hon. Members may recall that the good cause test for late claim applied in the case of a number of other, mainly income-related, benefits. It did not apply in the case of contributory benefits such as retirement pension or widows' benefits, for which slightly more generous rules were considered appropriate because they were contributory benefits. The difference amounts to the fact that if there were no good cause for a delay in claiming one of the income-related benefits, there was no


back-dating at all, whereas for the contributory benefits there was a 12-month time limit, whatever the reason for the delay.
Strictly speaking, for the contributory benefits it was not really a case of back-dating. Rather, a claimant had 12 months in which to make a claim. Twelve months was the period prescribed in primary legislation. Apart from exceptional cases in which a husband's body had not been recovered or identified, or where the woman was unaware of his death, the 12-month limit was also absolute. A claim outside the absolute limit will inevitably fail.
Then in April 1997, the previous Administration replaced the 12-month time limit with a three-month time limit. It remained an absolute rule, as it still is. There is no statutory basis for any payment to be made if, as in this case, the claim is made after the time limit has expired. There are internal rules about ex gratia payments that can be made if an individual is given clearly erroneous official information which results in loss of benefit. That was not the case. Officials in the Benefits Agency local office telephoned Mrs. Smith on 22 November to find out whether there was any possible way in which she could be helped because there had been official misinformation. They established, however, that there had been no official contact with her on the issue of the widow's payment until the out-of-time claim was received.
I appreciate very much that in Mrs. Smith's case there were good reasons for the delay in claiming benefit. The circumstances of her husband's awful death meant that there had to be an inquest. It was not her fault that the inquest was adjourned and that, by the time that it eventually took place on 12 October, the three months had elapsed. I also appreciate the fact that at a time of traumatic loss, a widow may not be best placed emotionally or otherwise to make the business of claiming benefit the first priority. The hon. Gentleman may think that that is a cliché but I keep saying it. In the DSS we deal with many tragic cases, but I repeat that there has never been any discretion as to whether the prescribed period of three months, or the previously prescribed 12 months, could be extended. As that is an absolute rule, the reason for the delay is immaterial.
It may be asked why we do not introduce a good cause provision, which would help to avoid such situations. The problem with the good cause rule was that it had become so overlaid with case law that decision-makers found it extremely difficult and time-consuming to wade through the decision-making process. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was taken to make such decisions, and there was still inconsistency and uncertainty about the outcome.
The previous Administration, of whom the hon. Gentleman was an enthusiastic supporter, therefore replaced that system with a set of specified circumstances which left little room for doubt whether a claim could or could not be backdated.
There is an argument that the three-month rule should be extended. That would not help Mrs. Smith, as it was not in place at the time of her husband's death. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of things that wherever a fence is erected, people fall on the wrong side of it.

If we extended the claim period to six months, some people might still lose out by the odd week or two by not making timely claims.
The information on backdating is contained in leaflets written in plain English and widely available in Benefits Agency offices, post offices, libraries and general practitioners' surgeries. To complicate the rules or introduce new rules to differentiate between different benefits would cause the re-appearance of the problems that the previous Administration sought to iron out by introducing the new rules.
Mrs. Smith appealed against the decision that she had been given. The appeal tribunal subsequently upheld the decision, as the hon. Gentleman said. Appeal tribunals are independent of the Department. It is essential that they are independent and that they can reach decisions in individual cases by applying the law to the facts of the case. It would be entirely inappropriate for me or any other Minister to seek to interfere in the decision of a tribunal. In all the changes that we have recently introduced to the way in which appeals are handled, we have been careful to ensure that the independence of the tribunal has been safeguarded.
Mrs. Smith's difficulty lay in the fact that some misinformation may have been given to her by her solicitor over the telephone. First, it appears that she may have been told that she could not claim widow's payment until a death certificate was to hand. If so, that information was wrong. The claim should have been made without delay, as the information leaflets for widow's benefit make clear. Had Mrs. Smith contacted the local office, she would have received confirmation of the message contained in the leaflet that any delay in claiming may affect entitlement.
If a claim had been made on time, there may have been a delay in payment while the evidence of death was obtained, but there would have been no question of breaching time limits.
Secondly, it appears that Mrs. Smith was not advised that she could have applied for an interim death certificate. It seems to me that on both of these points the complaint ought to be made against the solicitors.
On the wider issues that this sad case raises, let me say that we aim to modernise the delivery of social security.

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: We have introduced a range of changes to the ways in which decisions on social security claims and child support are made. We have made it easier for clients—

Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: No. I am in the middle of replying to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is not replying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.

Angela Eagle: We have made it easier for clients to get a full explanation and for us to put mistakes right more easily. We have made changes to the way in which


appeals are handled, to cut down on the time that people have to wait for a decision. That is now down to an average of 14 weeks.
These and the other changes that we have introduced are the first step in modernising delivery. We want to make the system more accessible for potential claimants and more straightforward for our staff. We want to provide claimants with advice to help them with their claims, but we cannot stop wrong advice being given by third parties.
People should be advised of the need to claim benefit at the right time. Such advice is available from our offices and from other sources, such as citizens advice bureaux. Leaflets are available on how to claim each benefit. In addition, in tragic circumstances such as those in Mrs. Smith's case, the registrar issues a registration or

notification of death certificate. That can be sent to the nearest social security office and can be accepted as a claim for benefit.
I recognise that in Mrs. Smith's case, the delay because of the inquest may have caused the confusion. However, the information is available, and there are voluntary organisations that can help and give advice in such terrible circumstances.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Thanet for raising the sad case that we have considered, even though, despite examining it carefully, I am afraid that I am unable to offer much comfort to him or his constituent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.